## Facts

- Haskell J. Dye had two biological sons from his first marriage.
- In 1959, the sons were adopted by their mother’s new husband with Haskell’s consent; under then-existing law, the adoption terminated their intestate inheritance rights from Haskell.
- Haskell later married Eleanor, who had a son, Scott T. Dye; Haskell adopted Scott.
- In 1989, Haskell and Eleanor executed reciprocal preprinted form wills leaving everything to each other, without a residuary clause or alternate beneficiaries.
- Eleanor died in January 1999, and her estate passed to Haskell.
- Haskell died in June 1999 without revising his will; because Eleanor predeceased him and no alternate takers were named, the estate was partially intestate.
- Scott petitioned for probate and asserted he was the sole heir.
- Phillip Joe Battles (one biological son) and the descendants of the other biological son (who predeceased Haskell) filed an heirship petition claiming intestate shares.
- The trial court determined the biological son and the other son’s issue were intestate heirs under post-1985 Probate Code provisions, and rejected Scott’s anti-lapse argument; Scott appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether post-1985 California Probate Code provisions permitted biological children adopted by a stepparent in 1959 (and their issue) to inherit from the natural parent by intestate succession.
2. Whether California’s anti-lapse statute applied to a devise to a predeceased spouse so that the spouse’s issue (Scott) would take in the spouse’s place.
3. Whether asserted evidence of the decedent’s intent to exclude the adopted-out biological family could override the statutory intestacy result created by a failed devise.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the decree determining heirship.
- The court held the post-1985 statutory scheme allowed the adopted-out biological son and the issue of the other adopted-out biological son to inherit from Haskell by intestacy.
- The court held the anti-lapse statute did not apply because a spouse is not the testator’s “kindred” for anti-lapse purposes.
- The court declined to alter the outcome based on arguments about fairness or the decedent’s probable intent, applying the statutory rules controlling partial intestacy.

## Legal Principles

- When a will fails to dispose of property (including because a sole beneficiary predeceases the testator and no alternate disposition is provided), the undisposed property passes by intestate succession under statute.
- California’s post-1985 Probate Code provisions may permit certain adopted-out children (and their descendants) to inherit from a natural parent despite an earlier adoption that would have barred inheritance under prior law.
- Anti-lapse protection applies only when the predeceased beneficiary falls within the statute’s specified relationship class; a spouse is not “kindred” of the testator for this purpose.
- Courts apply the statutory intestacy and anti-lapse framework even if the resulting distribution appears inconsistent with the decedent’s likely wishes.

## Conclusion

The court enforced statutory intestacy and anti-lapse rules after a predeceased-spouse devise failed in a form will without alternate takers, holding that adopted-out biological children (and their issue) could inherit under amended Probate Code provisions and that anti-lapse could not route the spousal devise to the spouse’s issue because a spouse is not “kindred.”


Estate of Dye, 92 Cal. App. 4th 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)