BROOKBANK, ADMR., APPELLEE, v. GRAY, APPELLANT.
Nos. 94-1945 and 94-1946
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
January 17, 1996
74 Ohio St.3d 279 | 1996-Ohio-135
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.
Submitted October 24, 1995. APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-930312.
- The term “children,” as used in
R.C. 2125.02(A)(1) , includes all natural or adopted children, whether legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged or illegitimate. - A child born out of wedlock is not foreclosed from recovering damages for the wrongful death of his or her putative father, simply because paternity had nоt been acknowledged, adjudicated or otherwise established during the putative father‘s lifetime. Paternity may be established after the death of the decedent in order to permit an illegitimate child recovery under the Wrongful Death Act for the wrongful death of his or her father.
- The court of common pleas has jurisdiction to determine the paternity of a child born out of wedlock in conjunction with a wrongful death claim.
{¶ 2} On March 23, 1993, the trial court entered partial summary judgment against appellee “on the claims of Kellie L. Brookbank, as common-law surviving spouse, and James Tyler Brookbank, as illegitimate son, as beneficiaries under the wrongful death statute,
{¶ 3} Appellee filed a notice of appeal with respect to both her claim as common-law wife and James’ claim as the illegitimate son of decedent. In her brief
{¶ 4} The court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding that “in a wrongful-death action the issue of parentage may be raised аfter the death of the putative father and it may be litigated in the court of common pleas.” In so holding, the court of appeals found that under the Ohio Parentage Act, specifically
{¶ 5} The cause is now before the court pursuant to the allowance of a discretionary appeal (No. 94-1945). Further, the court of appeals, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the decision of the Third Appellate District in Hunter-Martin v. Winchester Transp. (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 273, 593 N.E.2d 383, and the Second Appellate District in Hopping v. Erie Ins. Co. (Mar. 20, 1990), Clark App. No. 2649, unreported, certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination (No. 94-1946).
Richard G. Ward Co., L.P.A., and Richard G. Ward, for appellee.
McCaslin, Imbus & McCaslin, John J. Finnigan, Jr., and Matthew R. Skinner, for appellant.
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J.
{¶ 6} The primary issue confronting the court is whether a child born out of wedlock is foreclosed from recovering damages for the wrongful death of his or her putative father, where paternity had not been established during the putative father‘s lifetime.
{¶ 8} In Muhl‘s Admr. v. Michigan S. RR. Co. (1859), 10 Ohio St. 272, the court considered the issue of an illegitimate child‘s right to recover for the wrongful death of his mother. The court found that “the nearness or remoteness of kin on the pаrt of the son of the deceased mother *** depended [not] at all upon the circumstances of his being born within or without lawful wedlock.” Id. at 277. Accordingly, it was held that “the fact of such child‘s legitimacy or illegitimacy can in no respect affect the right of action in his behalf.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 9} Later, in White v. Randolph (1979), 59 Ohio St.2d 6, 13 O.O.3d 3, 391 N.E.2d 333, appeal dismissed sub nom. Jackson v. White (1980), 444 U.S. 1061, 100 S.Ct. 1000, 62 L.Ed.2d 743, the court held that the provisions of
“‘In Ohio, a child born out of wedlock is capable of inheriting from and through his mother,
R.C. 2105.17 , but may inherit from his father only under certain circumstances. As pointed out in Moore [v. Dague (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 75, 76-77, 75 O.O.2d 68, 69, 345 N.E.2d 449, 450], supra, thе father may legitimatize an illegitimate child by afterwards marrying the mother of the illegitimate child and acknowledging the child as his.R.C. 2105.18 . Further, the natural father of an illegitimate child may confer upon such child a right of inheritance from such child by several means: (1) by formal acknowledgement in Probate Court that the child is his with consent of the mother (R.C. 2105.18 ); (2) by designating the illegitimate child as his heir-at-law (R.C. 2105.15 ); (3) by adopting the illegitimate child; and (4) by making a provision for the child in his will.“‘***
“‘It has long been recognized in Ohio that proof of paternity, especially after the death of the alleged father, is difficult, and peculiarly subject to abuse. One of the resultants of such abuse would be the instability of land titles of reаl estate left by intestate fathers of illegitimate children.‘” Id. at 8, 13 O.O.3d at 4-5, 391 N.E.2d at 334.
{¶ 10} After the court‘s decision in White, the General Assembly enacted the Ohio Parentage Act,
{¶ 11} In addition,
{¶ 12} Not surprisingly, a split developed in the lower courts after the enactment of the Ohio Parentage Act over whether, for purposes of inheriting from and through the putative father, an illegitimate child may establish paternity post mortem. Some courts have held in favor of allowing paternity to be established after the death of the alleged father for purposes of gaining inheritance rights. In re Estate of Hicks (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 483, 629 N.E.2d 1086; Martin v. Davidson (Apr. 19, 1989), Summit App. No. 13840, unreported, certification dismissed on other grounds (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 240, 559 N.E.2d 1348; Alexander v. Alexander (1988), 42 Ohio Misc.2d 30, 537 N.E.2d 1310 (paternity may be established by genetic testing irrespective of the limitations pеriod set forth in
{¶ 13} On the other hand, in Beck v. Jolliff (1984), 22 Ohio App.3d 84, 22 OBR 237, 489 N.E.2d 825, it was held that “the word ‘child’ as used in the Statute of Descent and Distribution,
{¶ 14} The wrongful death cases, decided primarily in the courts of appeals, adopted the law as enunciated in White and Beck, supra, for purposes of defining the term “children *** of the decedent” as used in
{¶ 15} The fallacy of combining such disparate bodies of law, however, is immediately apparent. As the Supreme Court of Texas aptly explained in Garza v. Maverick Market, Inc. (Tex.1989), 768 S.W.2d 273, 275:
“The court of appeals held that in order to have standing to sue under the Wrongful Death Act, an illegitimate child must comply with the requirements of the Family Code and Probate Code, specifically,
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 13.01 et seq. (Vernon Supp.1987) andTex.Prob.Code Ann. §42(b) (Vernon Supp.1987), 744 S.W.2d at 288-89. However, this court, in Brown v. Edwards Transfer Co., 764 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.1988), rejected engrafting onto the Wrongful Death Act the requirements of the Probate Code for an illegitimate child to inherit from his father. The court reasoned that while the Probate Code provided an in-depth system for disposition of property incident to estates, it did not by that statute intend to provide an appropriate means to identify classes of persons entitled to sue under the Wrongful Death Act.“Similarly, in our present case it is inappropriate to incorporate the requirements of legitimation under the Family Code in the Wrongful Death Act. The two bodies of law are simply too disparate in application for such combination. The obvious purpose of chapter 13 of the Family Code is to protect the rights of mothers and putative fathers, and to serve the best interest of the child. The text of that chapter shows that it was neither designed or even intended to address tort actions; nor was it designed to protect tortfeasors. The equally obvious purpose of the Wrongful Death Act, on the other hand, is to provide a means whereby surviving spouses, children, and parents can recover for the loss of a family member by wrongful death. Absent any indication by the legislature that it intended the legitimation provisions of the Family Code to apply to the Wrongful Death Act, we will not make that application ourselves.
“We hold that in a wrongful death action an illegitimate child need not be ‘recognized’ in accordance with other bodies of law not specifically applicable to the Wrongful Death Act.”
{¶ 16} The same is true of the Ohio statutes. Nothing in the Statute of Descent and Distribution indicates that the General Assembly intended its provisions relative to inheritance rights of illegitimate children to apply to delineate beneficiary status under the Wrongful Death Act. Concomitantly, the Wrongful Death Act does not incorporate “heirship” into its provisions. In fact, beneficiaries “may include relatives who would not be eligible to inherit under
{¶ 17} There are other fundamental differences in the two statutes which render it inappropriate to commingle them. The state‘s interest in providing for the accurate determination of property ownership at death, so formidable in the inheritance context, is absent in wrongful death actions. Also, any presumptiоn that can be made that a father who did not legitimate his illegitimate offspring did not intend to leave his property at death to such child is irrelevant in wrongful death cases. Moreover, in inheritance actions illegitimate children compete directly against other next of kin, thus automatically diminishing the share of such other next of kin. In wrongful death actions, damages are measured by the injuries suffered by all statutory beneficiaries individually. See, e.g., In re Estate of Ortiz (1969), 60 Misc.2d 756, 761-762, 303 N.Y.S.2d 806, 812. In addition, the “fear of spurious claimants, [is] a problem more formidable in estate situations than in wrongful death actions in which the amount of the recovery will depend critically upon the amount of *** injury shown.” Schmoll v. Creecy (1969), 54 N.J. 194, 200, 254 A.2d 525, 528.
{¶ 18} Although not cited by apрellant, we have found one recent case that purports to bolster the propriety of engrafting inheritance law onto the Wrongful Death Act by reference to
“The date of the decedent‘s death fixes, subject to division (A)(3)(b)(iii) of this section, the status of all beneficiaries of the action for purposes of determining the damages suffered by them and the amount of damages to be awarded. A person who is conceived prior to the decedent‘s death and who is born alive after his death is a beneficiary of the action.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 20} We disagree with the federal district court‘s interpretation of
{¶ 22} Thus, we hold that the term “children,” as used in
{¶ 23} While the above is dispositive of the issue of standing, there is another reason why we cannot interpret the statute as the trial court did. This is because “[w]here reasonably possible, a statute should be given a construction which will avoid rather than a construction which will raise serious questions as to its constitutionality.” Co-operative Legislative Commt. of Trаnsp. Bhd. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1964), 177 Ohio St. 101, 29 O.O.2d 266, 202 N.E.2d 699, paragraph two of the syllabus. We believe that a serious question would be raised as to whether it is a violation of equal protection to deny an illegitimate child the right to
{¶ 24} Historically, the illegitimate child has been forced, both socially and legally, to bear the brunt of the sins of his parents. Sоciety resented the illegitimate child as “‘a living symbol of social irregularity.‘” Krause, Equal Protection for the Illegitimate (1967), 65 Mich.L.Rev. 477, fn. 4, quoting Davis, Illegitimacy and the Social Structure (1939), 45 Am.J. Sociology 215. “Over the centuries he has been the innocent object of prejudice transferred from the guilt of his conception,” Franklin v. Julian (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 228, 229, 59 O.O.2d 264, 265, 283 N.E.2d 813, 814; his predicament compared to the “application of the Old Testament (Exodus 20) commandment ‘visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,‘” In re Woodward‘s Estate (1964), 230 Cal.App.2d 113, 118, 40 Cal.Rptr. 781, 784. Consequently, at common law he was deemed nullius filius—the child of nobody—and thereby denied many of the rights accorded a legitimate child. See Notes and Comments, Out for Blood: Proving Paternity When Daddy‘s Dead (1992), 13 J. of Juv.L. 80; Annotation, Discrimination on Basis of Illegitimacy as Denial of Constitutional Rights (1971), 38 A.L.R.3d 613, 615, Section 1.
{¶ 25} Vestiges of the common-law rule obviously still remain in the Statute of Descent and Distribution. Whether or not this has been changed by the enactment of the Ohio Parentage Act is inconsequential for purposes of an equal protection analysis. Even if the Parentage Act were interpreted to preclude illegitimate children from claiming inheritance rights from and through their natural fathers absent an adjudication of paternity inter vivos, it is clear that the Ohio intestate succession scheme would nevertheless be constitutional. In providing several options by which the illegitimate child may effectuate inheritance rights
{¶ 26} If the matter were as simple as applying these rules to the wrongful death cases, the constitutional inquiry would end here. The matter, however, is not that simple. To withstand the intermediate level of scrutiny applied to discriminatory classifications based on illegitimacy, the “statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.” Clark v. Jeter (1988), 486 U.S. 456, 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910, 1914, 100 L.Ed.2d 465, 471. In wrongful death statutory schemes, the focus shifts away from regulation of property ownership and toward the tort arena. Depending upon the nature of recoverable damages, various levels of protections against spurious claims and multiple lawsuits are built into wrongful death statutes. Thus, the equal protection analysis will play out differently here than in the inheritance cases.
{¶ 27} In Levy v. Louisiana (1968), 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 20 L.Ed.2d 436, the United States Supreme Court held that the Louisiana wrongful death statute, construed to deny a right of recovery by illegitimate children for the wrongful death of their mother, creates an invidious discrimination in contravention of the Equal Protection Clause of the
“Legitimacy or illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong аllegedly inflicted on the mother. These children, though illegitimate, were dependent on her; she cared for them and nurtured them; they were indeed hers in
the biological and in the spiritual sense; in her death they suffered wrong in the sense that any dependent would.” Id., 391 U.S. at 72, 88 S.Ct. at 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d at 439.
{¶ 28} Levy can be fairly interpreted as a proscription against barring the rights of unacknowledged illegitimate children to recovery in a wrongful death action.5 This is because, as pointed out in a dissenting opinion appearing in Glona v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. (1968), 391 U.S. 73, 88 S.Ct. 1515, 20 L.Ed.2d 441, rehearing denied (1968), 393 U.S. 898, 89 S.Ct. 66, 21 L.Ed.2d 185, but applying also to Levy, under Louisiana law an illegitimate child could recover for the wrongful death of a parent who has acknowledged or legitimated the child. 391 U.S. at 79, 88 S.Ct. at 1513, 20 L.Ed.2d at 445 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
{¶ 29} In Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (1972), 406 U.S. 164, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 31 L.Ed.2d 768, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Louisiana workers’ compensation statute that denied dependent unacknowledged illegitimate children the right to recover benefits for the death of their natural father. In that case, the Louisiana Supreme Court attempted to distinguish Levy as involving a statute which absolutely excluded all illegitimate children from recovery as opposed to excluding only unacknowledged illegitimate children. The court, however, refused to dispose of Levy “by such finely carved distinctions.” 406 U.S. at 169, 92 S.Ct. at 1403, 31 L.Ed.2d at 775.
{¶ 30} The court also found workers’ compensation statutes and wrongful death statutes to be similar in origin and purpose, but dissimilar to inheritance statutes. “Both the statute in Levy and the statute in the present case involve state-creаted compensation schemes, designed to provide close relatives and dependents
{¶ 31} On the other hand, the court distinguished Labine, supra, on the basis that “[t]hat decision reflected, in major part, the traditional deference to a state‘s prerogative to regulate the disposition at death of property within its borders. *** The Court has long afforded broad scope to state discretion in this area. Yet the substantial state interest in providing for ‘stability of *** land titles аnd in the prompt and definitive determination of the valid ownership of property left by decedents,’ is absent in the case at hand.” (Citations omitted.) 406 U.S. at 170, 92 S.Ct. at 1404, 31 L.Ed.2d at 776.
{¶ 32} Nevertheless, the court in Weber recognized that a certain amount of deference must be afforded to state legislatures to impose rules to facilitate difficult problems of proving paternity. However, the court did not believe that its decision undermined the state‘s interest in this regard. Under Louisiana‘s compensation scheme, a showing of dependency was a prerequisite to the recovery of death benefits. Thus, the statute already provided a means by which to lessen the possible problems of multiple and uncertain claims of parenthood. 406 U.S. at 174-176, 92 S.Ct. at 1406-1407, 31 L.Ed.2d at 778-779.
{¶ 33} Finally, in Parham v. Hughes (1979), 441 U.S. 347, 99 S.Ct. 1742, 60 L.Ed.2d 269, the Supreme Court considered the reverse situation where a father who had not legitimated his child sought to recover for the child‘s wrongful death. The court upheld a denial of an action to the father, finding that “[u]nlike the illegitimate child for whom the status of illegitimacy is involuntary and immutable, the [father] here was responsible for fostering an illegitimate child and for failing to change its status.” 441 U.S. at 353, 99 S.Ct. at 1746, 60 L.Ed.2d at 276.
“Of particular concern to the State is the existence of some mechanism for dealing with ‘the often difficult problem of proving the paternity of illegitimate children and the related danger of spurious claims against intestate estates.’ Lalli v. Lalli, supra [439 U.S.], at 265 [99 S.Ct. at 523, 58 L.Ed.2d at 509]. See also Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. [535], at 538 [93 S.Ct. 872, 875, 35 L.Ed.2d 56, 59-60].
“This same state interest in avoiding fraudulent claims of paternity in order to maintain a fair and orderly system of decedent‘s property disposition is also present in the context of actions for wrongful death. If paternity has not been established before the commencement of a wrongful-death action, a defendant may be faced with the possibility of multiple lawsuits by individuals all claiming to be the father of the deceased child. Such uncertainty would make it difficult if not impossible for a defendant to settle a wrongful-death action in many cases, since there would always exist the risk of a subsequent suit by another person claiming to be the father. The State of Georgia has chosen to deal with this problem by allowing only fathers who have established their paternity by legitimating their children to sue for wrongful death, and we cannot say that this solution is an irrational one. Cf. Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 [99 S.Ct. 518, 58 L.Ed.2d 503].” 441 U.S. at 357-358, 99 S.Ct. at 1748-1749, 60 L.Ed.2d at 278-279.
{¶ 35} Under a superficial analysis, it could be argued that the court adopted the “middle ground” approach applicable to the inheritance statutes. Under closer scrutiny, however, it becomes clear that the court did no more than recognize the same important governmental interest in facilitating difficult problems of proving paternity that it had already recognized in Weber, and simply applied it to the unique scenario in Parham. The situation in Parham involved a suit by a father, not the child. More importantly, the Georgia statute at issue in Parham based the
{¶ 36} None of these cases—Levy, Weber and Parham—is directly on point in determining whether the trial court‘s interpretation in the case sub judice, if accepted, could withstand equal protection scrutiny. They do, however, provide a framework for analysis. As aрplicable here, the cases identify the need to establish some method to deal with the danger of fraudulent claims and to accord finality to wrongful death actions as important governmental objectives. Whether a particular statutory classification based on illegitimacy is substantially related to those objectives in wrongful death statutes depends critically upon the extent to which the statute already has built into it protection against the evils sought to be avoided.
{¶ 37} Under Ohio‘s Wrongful Death Act, damages are keyed to the losses suffered by the surviving beneficiaries. The amount of damages is determined on the basis of pecuniary and dependenсy-related factors. Accordingly, unlike the Georgia statute at issue in Parham, our statute provides protection against uninjured or undeserving potential distributees. Moreover, the two-year time limitation on bringing a wrongful death action imposed by
{¶ 39} Thus, most courts have refused to burden the illegitimate child with the consequences resulting when those to whose care the child has been entrusted have failed to protect the child‘s interests. Thus, there is а general refusal in wrongful death cases to accept any classification that purports to establish a connection between inter vivos recognition and/or adjudication, on the one hand, and the harm suffered by the illegitimate child, on the other hand, particularly where the loss is ultimately determined under the statute on the basis of pecuniary or dependency-related factors. Accordingly, most post-Levy decisions have distinguished the inheritance cases, and have held that formal acknowledgement or adjudication of paternity prior to the putative father‘s death cannot be imposed as a prerequisite to permitting the illegitimate child to recover for the father‘s wrongful death. Millman v. Cty. of Butler (1993), 244 Neb. 125, 134-135, 504 N.W.2d 820, 826-827; Chatelain, supra (status as “child” used defensively); Garza, supra;
{¶ 40} Accordingly, we find that any interpretation of our Wrongful Death Act that precludes illegitimate children from establishing paternity after the death of their putative father for purposes of recovering for the wrongful death of the putative father is violative оf their equal protection rights as guaranteed by the
{¶ 42} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., CONCUR.
COOK, J., concurs separately.
COOK, J., concurring.
{¶ 43} I concur in the syllabus, judgment and reasoning of the court on the primary issue. Because I find the discussion of the constitutional issue to be unwarranted, I do not concur with that portion of the opinion. See, e.g., Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 20, 28 OBR 83, 502 N.E.2d 590, paragraph two of the syllabus, citing State ex rel. Herbert v. Ferguson (1944), 142 Ohio St. 496, 27 O.O. 415, 52 N.E.2d 980, paragraph two of