A rule was adopted in section 2114-4 of the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC) that precludes a father from inheriting in this manner if he has failed to acknowledge the child as his and has failed to provide support for his child. Perhaps because of the inartful wording of the statute, however, this section was used to try to preclude one Ernest Lee Umble from inheriting one-half of a $500,000 estate from the estate of his deceased great-nephew, Kenneth Koehler.
The background to the case included:
- The common ancestor was Carl Cedrick Umble, Ernest's father and Kenneth's grandfather
- Kenneth had a group of cousins and other relatives on his mother's side (the "maternal relatives")
- Kenneth died leaving no spouse, no children, and no siblings
- Under EPIC, therefore, his estate was to be divided equally between relatives on his mother's side and relatives on his father's side
- Ernest was the sole relative on Kenneth's father's side
As a result of the rule in point 4 above, it was necessary to trace Kenneth's lineage upward two generations, to Carl Umble. The maternal relatives, however, argued that the probate court could not regard Carl Koehler as the son of Carl Umble given the language of section 2114-4.
In previous years, many states distinguished between legitimate and illegitimate children. That distinction has been abolished nearly everywhere. Michigan's current statute, under EPIC, makes no such distinction.
There was no evidence that Carl Umble had ever denied that the baby Florence was carrying was his. It appears, although both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals danced around the issue a bit, that the maternal relatives were relying on what appears to be a negative presumption in the language of section 2114-4.
This issue demonstrates a reality that affects the judicial interpretation of statutory language: the Legislature is not perfect. The language that it uses in the drafting of statutes is often inartful, clumsy, or sloppy.
Section 2114-4 says: "[i]nheritance from or through a child by either natural parent or his or her kindred is precluded unless that natural parent has openly treated the child as his or hers, and has not refused to support the child." One approach, taking a plain-meaning approach to this language, would interpret it to mean:
- Normally, a parent or someone taking "upward" through a parent may not inherit (regardless of legitimacy). That is the apparent statutory presumption.
- The presumption can be overcome by evidence that the natural parent "openly" treated the child as his or her child, and that he or she had not refused to provide support to the child. Normally, we would think, this first leg would apply only to the father, but it could also be read to apply to a woman who has surrendered a child to be raised by another, without a formal guardianship in place.
- If either of these is not established, the presumption is overcome.
The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, quite naturally, rejected this conclusion as inconsistent with the apparent legislative intent. Despite the sloppy wording of the subsection, the Court concluded that the Legislature intended to disqualify only a parent who has refused to acknowledge his child, or who has refused to provide support to his child. Further, it concluded, this can by definition only occur after the child is born.
Judge Peter O'Connell submitted what is called a "dissent." He did not disagree with the majority's ultimate conclusion, and he also did not mention the apparent presumption argument. He believed, however, that the case should be remanded to the probate court to take further evidence. Where he differed from the majority was on the assumption that a refusal to acknowledge a child is logically impossible before the child is born. Citing and quoting from two decisions by courts in other states, he concluded that it is possible that a married man, faced with the news that a woman he had been intimate with was now pregnant, might try to claim that the child was not his, and was fathered by another man. He cited no evidence of such a statement under the facts of the case, but did note that it would, if established, constitute a refusal to acknowledge paternity.
(Note: Neither of the opinions addressed the question of whether Colorado law rather than Michigan law should apply to the issue of inheritance by Carl Koehner from Carl Umber at the time of the latter's death.)