SMITH v. SMITH, 2017 OK CIV APP 56

Decedent Robert Lee Smith received a life estate in a parcel under his mother Esther Smith’s will; the remainder was to go at his death to "his natural children, Daphne Smith, Donita [Dawnita] Smith, and any other child or children born to him, in equal shares."
Robert had two biological daughters (Dawnita and Daphne) and one adopted son (Greg) whom he adopted after marrying Greg’s biological mother.
After Robert’s death, Dawnita and Daphne filed to quiet title, contesting whether Greg (the adopted child) was a remainderman under the will.
The trial court ruled that the adopted child was included as a remainderman; the daughters appealed.
The question presented is whether the will’s language (“natural children” and children “born to him”) excludes adopted children from the remainder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adopted child is entitled to remainder as a child of Robert	Dawnita/Daphne: the will’s language expresses intent to limit remainder to biological children only	Greg: adoption law treats adopted children like natural children for inheritance, so he should share	Court held the phrase “natural children” and “born to him” sufficiently expressed intent to exclude adopted children; adopted child not a remainderman

Matter of Estate of Flowers, 848 P.2d 1146 (Okla. 1993) (adoption statutes generally abolish distinctions between adopted and biological children for inheritance)
Hines v. First Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. of Oklahoma City, 708 P.2d 1078 (Okla. 1985) (terms like “issue of the body” or “born in wedlock” evince intent to exclude adopted children)