Who’s Your Daddy? – For Inheritance Purposes That Is
The Utah Supreme Court recently determined that a child can have more than one father for inheritance purposes. The case of In re Estate of John Clifford Heater, 2021 UT App 66 (Utah 2021) involves the intestate estate of John Heater who died in 2008. His son and daughter Gina Kirkland and Garret Heater have been fighting over the estate for years. In 2016 Garret reached out to John Carlon and told him that he thought John Heater may be his father as well. Carlon intervened and alleged that John Heater was his biological father and he was, therefore, an additional heir to Heater’s estate. Genetic testing supported his assertion and the court entered an order stating that all three were the heirs of Heater’s estate. Gina appealed the decision arguing that under Utah’s Uniform Parentage Act, Carlon’s presumed father was the man who was married to his mother at the time of his birth and that the probate code would prevent him from inheriting from two fathers. This man, Thomas Carlon, died in 2007. As my daughter likes to say: “It’s complicated.”
The probate code provides: “for purposes of intestate succession..., an individual is the child of the individual’s natural parents, regardless of their marital status. The parent and child relationship may be established as provided in [the Utah Uniform Parentage Act].” The court held that this provision of the code meant that a parent-child relationship could be established either by showing the individual was a natural parent or in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act. So you can establish the individual is your parent in one of two ways. The court then held that your “natural” parent is your biological parent. Finally, the court determined that the Uniform Parentage Act only created a presumption of who the parent was and that this presumption could be rebutted. John Heater is John Carlon’s father.
Having beaten back all of Gina’s other arguments, the court turned its attention to the so-called “one parent rule.” Here she lost as well. The court explained that while the one parent rule existed, it was limited by statute to the context of adoptions. Therefore, for intestate succession, it would be possible for Carlon to inherit from both as their child.
So in Utah, unless the legislature makes a change to the code, the answer to the question of “Who’s your daddy” is, both. There are A LOT of lessons to be learned here. But, the lesson for our purposes is, as always, get your affairs in order (no pun intended) and an estate plan in place. Had Heater had a will or trust in place that addressed the issue years of litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees would have been avoided. This is only an issue now because he failed to plan.
This post is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact an attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship between Hallock & Hallock and the reader.