Korbin v. GinsbergKorbin v. Ginsberg
Daniel L. Ginsberg, North Miami Beach, for appellee Daniel L. Ginsberg, Executor.
OWEN, Judge.
Benjamin R. Berlin filed a petition to legally adopt his wife‘s three minor children by her previous marriage. While that matter was still pending, Mr. Berlin was killed in an automobile accident, whereupon the court on its own motion dismissed the adoption proceedings for want of jurisdiction to proceed.
The minor children, through their mother as next friend, then brought a separate action in the circuit court against the executor of the estate of Benjamin R. Berlin seeking a judgment specifically performing the agreement made by Benjamin R. Berlin to adopt the children as his own, by decreeing the children legally adopted and changing their name from Korbin to Berlin. The complaint sought various other relief, none of which is material to the question raised on this appeal.
The defendant executor, aware of the fact that it had been the decedent‘s wish to legally adopt the minor children and to give them the name of Berlin, not only admitted all material allegations of the complaint but in essence stipulated that the plaintiffs were entitled to a summary judgment decreeing the minor children legally adopted by Mr. Berlin posthumously. However, the court determined that it could not decree the adoption posthumously and dismissed the cause without prejudice. The appeal is from that order.
Adoption, being wholly statutory in nature, can be decreed only in accordance with the statute. The present suit not having been brought pursuant to the adoption statutes,
A judgment or decree of adoption establishes the relationship of parent and child to the same extent as though the child had been born to such parent in lawful wedlock.
The children were not seeking specific performance of an agreement to support them during their minority and money damages sufficient to fulfill such agreement, as was the case in Roberts v. Caughell, Fla. 1953, 65 So.2d 547. Neither were the children seeking to specifically enforce the agreement to the extent of declaring them entitled to a child‘s share in their foster father‘s estate, as was the case in Sheffield v. Barry, 1943, 153 Fla. 144, 14 So.2d 417. The last cited case clearly recognized the distinction between equitable relief of that type on the one hand and the ability of the court to decree adoption posthumously on the other.
The appellants’ prayer for a change of name was relief which was sought in conjunction with their prayer decreeing adoption, and the complaint did not meet the statutory requirements for change of name under
Affirmed.
CROSS, C.J., and REED, J., concur.