Marcia E. Roll v. Russell L. Newhall
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 116
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Marrian Newhall executed a 2006 will leaving the residue to "my children, RUSSELL L. NEWHALL and MARCIA E. ROLL," and named both as coexecutors; the will states "child or children shall include all children born to or adopted by me after the date this Will is executed."
- In 2007 Russell (an adult) was adopted by his paternal aunt; under Iowa law the adoption terminated the legal parent–child relationship with his biological mother for intestate succession purposes.
- Marrian died in 2014, survived by no spouse. Russell claimed the will’s individual naming entitled him to inherit; Marcia (the other child and executor) sought a declaratory judgment that Russell’s post-will adoption excluded him from taking under the will.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Russell, holding a gift naming beneficiaries both individually and by class is an individual gift and not defeated by adoption-out.
- On appeal the issues were (1) whether the testator intended a class gift that would exclude an adopted-out person and (2) whether public policy should bar an adopted-away adult from taking under a biological relative’s will.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roll) | Defendant's Argument (Newhall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Russell’s post-will adult adoption extinguished his right to take under Marrian’s will | The will’s gift "to my children" shows a class intent; because Russell was no longer a child under the law at death, he is excluded | The will names Russell individually (and by class); naming by name creates an individual gift that survives adoption absent contrary intent | The court held the gift is an individual gift by name despite the class label; Russell may take |
| Whether the will’s language indicates testator intended to exclude subsequently adopted-out persons | Roll: definition of "children" that includes later-adopted-in persons (but not adopted-out) shows class intent to include only those who are legally children at death | Newhall: the will’s appointment of the two as coexecutors (named individually) and express naming of Russell show intent to benefit those individuals | Court: no evidence testator intended to exclude named individuals who later were adopted out; will read as individual gifts |
| Whether the class descriptor "children" is rendered meaningless if treated as individual gifts | Roll: treating it as individual gift makes "children" meaningless | Newhall: class descriptor serves identificatory purpose and does not become meaningless | Court: descriptor can serve identification; does not render word meaningless |
| Whether public policy should bar adopted-away adults from taking under a biological relative’s will | Roll: to deter inheritance-tax manipulation and because adoption severs legal parent–child relationship, public policy should preclude inheritance | Newhall: statutes governing intestacy show legislature left testamentary disposition open; court should not fashion new public-policy exception | Court: no public-policy basis to invalidate a clear testamentary gift to a named beneficiary; refused to create rule barring adopted-away persons from taking under wills |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Carter, 203 Iowa 603 (1927) (holding that naming beneficiaries individually alongside a class indicates an individual gift)
- Friederichs v. Friederichs, 205 Iowa 505 (1928) (same principle: named individuals prevail over class description absent contrary intent)
- In re Estate of Rogers, 473 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 1991) (cardinal rule: testator’s intent governs will construction)
- Benz v. Paulson, 246 Iowa 1005 (1955) (will language construed as of date of execution for intended meaning)
- In re French’s Estate, 242 Iowa 113 (1950) (individual gift defined by naming beneficiaries)