466 P.3d 728
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- John Clifford Heater died intestate in 2008; initial known heirs were his daughter Gina Mallough Kirkland and a son ("Brother").
- In 2016 Brother notified John Carlon via social media that Heater might be Carlon’s biological father; Carlon moved to intervene in the probate to assert heir status.
- Carlon submitted affidavits (his and his mother’s) recounting a close relationship between Heater and his mother, and DNA evidence showing Carlon and Brother are half-brothers with 99.99% certainty.
- The district court allowed intervention, found Carlon to be Heater’s biological son based on the evidence, and entered an Order Determining Heirs naming Brother, Kirkland, and Carlon.
- Kirkland appealed, arguing: (1) the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA) provides the exclusive means to establish parentage for intestate succession, and (2) the one-set-of-parents rule bars Carlon from inheriting from Heater because Carlon already had a presumptive father under the UUPA.
Issues
| Issue | Kirkland's Argument | Carlon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the UUPA is the exclusive method to establish a parent-child relationship for intestate succession | UUPA’s paternity presumptions and rebuttal procedures are exclusive; Probate Code must be harmonized with UUPA | Probate Code § 2-114 independently defines parent-child relationship for intestacy and allows other proof (e.g., genetics) | The Probate Code controls for intestate succession; UUPA is not exclusive and may be applied only where appropriate under §2-114 |
| Whether the one-set-of-parents rule prevents Carlon from inheriting from Heater because he had a presumptive (nonbiological) father under the UUPA | The rule should bar dual inheritance; Carlon already had legally established parents and thus cannot also inherit from Heater | One-set-of-parents rule is statutory and tied to adoption-language in the Probate Code; it does not extend to biological-vs.-presumptive-father situations | The one-set-of-parents rule, as articulated in Hannifin, is limited to the adoption context under the Probate Code and does not preclude Carlon from inheriting from Heater |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Hannifin, 311 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2013) (held Probate Code preempts equitable adoption and discussed the one-set-of-parents rule in adoption context)
- Metropolitan Water Dist. v. SHCH Alaska Trust, 452 P.3d 1158 (Utah 2019) (statutory-interpretation standard of review)
- DeLand v. Uintah County, 945 P.2d 172 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (plain-language statutory interpretation guidance)