## Facts

- Julie L. Schroeder was Mary Allen Cirksana’s daughter from a prior relationship.
- When Julie was about two years old, Mary married Neil Adam Seader; Neil agreed he would adopt Julie, treated her as his daughter, and Julie used the Seader surname while growing up.
- Neil and Mary consulted an attorney about adoption but did not complete a formal adoption.
- Neil and Mary had two biological sons: Neil J. Seader and Charles Lee Seader.
- Mary died in 1966, leaving her estate to Neil.
- Neil executed a will in 1996 making specific bequests and leaving the residuary estate to Neil J., Charles, and Julie.
- Julie died in 2000 before Neil; Neil died later in 2000.
- In probate, the personal representative initially proposed distributing Julie’s one-third residuary share to her children, Kim Sanderson and Kirk Olive.
- Neil J. and Charles objected, asserting the anti-lapse statutes did not apply because Julie was not Neil’s blood or legally adopted descendant and the will did not provide for substitution to Julie’s children.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming law permits equitable adoption, adoption by estoppel, or virtual adoption to treat a nonadopted stepchild as a “lineal descendant” for purposes of Wyoming’s anti-lapse statutes.
2. Whether the will evidenced an intent that Julie’s residuary share pass to her children if Julie predeceased the testator.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the probate court.
- The court held that equitable adoption (including adoption by estoppel or virtual adoption) was not available on these facts to treat the stepchild as the testator’s lineal descendant for anti-lapse purposes.
- The court held the will did not express an intent to substitute Julie’s children for Julie if she predeceased the testator.
- Julie’s residuary gift lapsed and passed to the surviving residuary devisees, Neil J. and Charles.

## Legal Principles

- Wyoming’s anti-lapse protections apply only to devisees who qualify under the statute (including “lineal descendants”), which requires a blood or legally adopted relationship.
- Courts will not use equitable adoption theories to expand statutory anti-lapse categories where no formal adoption occurred, particularly in a stepparent–stepchild relationship.
- A residuary devise to a named beneficiary who predeceases the testator lapses unless saved by an applicable anti-lapse statute or a clear substitutionary provision in the will (e.g., “to A, or if A predeceases me, to A’s children/issue”).
- Testamentary intent is determined primarily from the will’s language as a whole; absent ambiguity, courts do not supply substitutionary gifts based on relationship evidence alone.

## Conclusion

Because Julie was neither Neil’s blood nor legally adopted descendant and the will contained no substitutionary language for Julie’s children, the anti-lapse statutes did not preserve Julie’s residuary share, and that share lapsed to the surviving residuary devisees.


In re Estate of Seader, 76 P.3d 1236 (Wyo. 2003)