Sanders v. Yanez
238 Cal. App. 4th 1466
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Marion C. Sanders executed a 1975 will (probate assets placed in a trust) defining “issue” to include “legally adopted children,” and naming Mary (her daughter) as lifetime income beneficiary; remainder to Mary’s issue on Mary’s death.
- Mary, living in Texas, adopted Andrew (her long‑time friend’s biological son) in 2013 when he was an adult; the Texas adoption order stated Andrew is Mary’s son “for all purposes.”
- In 2014 Mary (as cotrustee) petitioned the probate court to declare Andrew a successor beneficiary of the Trust; Jody (a contingent beneficiary) opposed.
- The probate court accepted that Texas adult adoption creates heirship but concluded it did not create a parent‑child relationship equivalent to California law and therefore Andrew was not “issue” under Marion’s will.
- The court relied on Newman/Ehrenclou principles about construing commonly used terms in wills against the background law and public policy at the time the will was executed; Mary appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adult adopted in Texas is "issue" under a California will that defines "issue" to include "adopted children" | Mary: Texas adult adoption creates a parent‑child relationship "for all purposes," so Andrew is included as "adopted child" and thus "issue" | Jody: Texas adult adoption only confers heirship and lacks mutual parent‑child duties under California law, so testator did not intend to include such adoptees as "issue" | Reversed: Texas law creates a parent‑child relationship for all purposes; Andrew qualifies as "issue" under Marion's will |
| Whether extrinsic evidence or public‑policy differences at time of will execution permit excluding out‑of‑state adult adoptees from "issue" | Mary: The will’s plain inclusion of "adopted children" controls; sister‑state adoption status governs | Jody: Newman/Ehrenclou permit interpreting "issue" against contemporaneous law/public policy to exclude non‑equivalent foreign adult adoptions | Court: No extrinsic intent evidence existed; cannot invalidate a sister‑state parent‑child status merely because its incidental duties differ from California's |
Key Cases Cited
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co., 62 Cal.2d 861 (discusses instrument interpretation and limits on extrinsic evidence)
- Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank, 14 Cal.4th 126 (latent ambiguity in words like "issue" and considering law/policy at will execution)
- Ehrenclou v. MacDonald, 117 Cal.App.4th 364 (construed "issue" where out‑of‑state adult adoptions created only heirship rights)
- In re Estate of Hebert, 42 Cal.App.2d 664 (adoption status determined by law of state where adoption occurred)
- Lehman v. Corpus Christi Nat’l Bank, 668 S.W.2d 687 (Texas recognition that an adopted adult is the child of adoptive parents "for every purpose")