HomeMy WebLinkAbout1214 ors
ww ^ j~
~L - .7s `1
I------- r.
• r
- i
At the times relevant In Hewett and in the present case the
order of devolution of an Intiestate's pzoperty was provided by §731.23,
F, S. , in relevant part as follows:
"(5) if there is none of the foregoing [no surviving
spouse, lineal descendants or parent], ro the brothers
and sisters and the descendants of deceased-brothers
and sisters.
"(6) If there is none of the foregoing, the estate shall
be divided loco moieties, one of which shall go to the ~
paternal and the other ~ the maternal kindred in the
following course:
sas
- "(b) If there is no grandfather or grandmother, -
to the uncles and .aunts and the descendants of
such of them as may be deceased. "
In rejecting Lucy's claim as the adopted daughoer of Perry -
i
Carlton's brother, the circuit court in this case resolved the controversy
on the principal if not the only theory there submitted by Lucy, namely,
that legislation intervening since 1941 reversed the result in Hewett,
supra,n. 1. We sustain Lucy's claim as a matter of law, but by another
route. -
The Court in. Hewett held that the claimant, though by statute
i
j the heir at law and lineal descendant of her adoptive father, §§72.06, 731.30,
i
F.S. 1941, could not claim to be a descendant of her father's mother
~ Thankful Collwell, the deceased aunt of the intestate. T'he Hewett court re-
~ -
I jetted claimant's argument
"that an adopted child could not 'for -the purpose
of inheritance be regarded as a lineal descendant -
of its adopting parents' without also being regarded as
the lineal descendant of its adopting parents' anoes-
tiors . " 13 So. 2d- at 906.
Therefore, the Hewett claimant was not among the "descendants .of such
deceased [uncles and aunts], " to whom the. estate passed by opera-
fi lion of §731.23 (6)(b), F . S.1941, supra .
1. (continued) ro the present case, _ created the same "relationship between
the adopted person and the petitioner and all relatives of the petitioner that
would have existed if the adopted person were a legitimate blood descendant
t
of .the petitioner. " Sec. 63.172(c), F.S. 1975. See also $731.30, F.S.
1973.
-2 -
X334
. .
~ ,