## Facts

- Loretta A. Smith’s will created a testamentary trust, including a share “for the children of my son, Ralph J. Smith, Jr., whether now living or born hereafter.”
- At Loretta’s death, Ralph Jr. had biological children who were treated as the existing class members.
- After Loretta’s death, Ralph Jr. legally adopted Bryan Smith.
- The trust authorized discretionary expenditures for beneficiaries’ support and education and contemplated distributions of principal to each grandchild at specified ages.
- When Bryan asserted beneficiary status, the trustee (Central Trust Company of Northern Ohio, N.A.) denied his claim and sought a declaratory judgment construing the trust.

## Issues

1. Whether an individual adopted by the testator’s son after the testator’s death is included in a testamentary trust class gift to the son’s “children” when the instrument contains no express exclusion of adopted children.
2. Whether the class of “children” necessarily closed at the testator’s death, barring later-adopted children from taking.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals.
- Bryan Smith, as the legally adopted child of Ralph Jr., was included within the class “children of my son, Ralph J. Smith, Jr.”
- The class did not necessarily close at the testator’s death; the language “whether now living or born hereafter,” read with applicable law, supported keeping the class open to later additions, including adoption.

## Legal Principles

- Under former R.C. 3107.13, a legally adopted child has the same status and rights as a natural child of the adoptive parents for purposes including inheritance under wills and testamentary trusts.
- For wills executed after the effective date of the adoption statute, the common-law “stranger to the adoption” doctrine does not justify excluding adopted children from class gifts described as “children” absent express limiting language.
- A testamentary trust class described as the “children” of a parent presumptively includes adopted children unless the instrument clearly provides otherwise.
- A class in a testamentary trust does not necessarily close at the testator’s death; the timing of class closing turns on the testator’s intent as shown by the instrument’s language and applicable law.

## Conclusion

The court held that an after-adopted child could share in a testamentary trust class gift to the testator’s son’s “children” where the will contained no exclusionary language and, by stating “whether now living or born hereafter,” indicated an intent to keep the class open beyond the testator’s death.


Cent. Tr. Co. of N. Ohio, N.A. v. Smith, 50 Ohio St. 3d 133, 553 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio 1990)