Law of Wills, 2016A

Class Discussion Tool
LaMeesha had an affair with Melvin, a prominent member of the community. As a result of
that liaison, LaMeesha conceived a child. Prior to the birth of the child, LaMeesha and Melvin
signed a contract. LaMeesha agreed not to file a claim for child support. In exchange for that
promise, Melvin promised to pay LaMeesha $700 per month to provide for the child’s financial
needs. After the child, Cameron, was born Melvin made the promised payments. When Cameron
was fourteen years old, Melvin died intestate, survived by his wife, Linda and distant cousins. The
state had the following statute: “A child born out of wedlock may not inherit from or through the
child’s father, the other children of the father, or any parental kinship, unless: A court of competent
jurisdiction has entered an order declaring the child to be legitimate; a court of competent
jurisdiction has otherwise entered a court order establishing paternity; the father has signed the birth
certificate of the child; the father has executed a sworn statement signed by him attesting to the
parent-child relationship; or there is other clear and convincing evidence that the child is the child of
the father.” Does the contract satisfy the statutory requirements? Is the contract enforceable against
the estate?
5.2.3 Right to Inherit Through Fathers
Children have no control over the actions of their parents. Consequently, they should not be
penalized because their parents chose to have them without the benefit of marriage. Therefore, the
Supreme Court has taken steps to ensure that non-marital children have the opportunity to inherit
from their fathers. From a public policy perspective, this makes sense because a man has a legal duty
to provide financial support for his child(ren). That obligation should not end with death of the
man. Courts have been less inclined to require that the non-marital child be given the right to inherit
through his or her father. This is especially true if that mandate would frustrate the intent of a
testator. That issue is taken up in the next case.
In re Dumaine, 600 A.2d 127 (N.H. 1991)
BATCHELEDER, J.
Elizabeth Ann Charney appeals the ruling of the Superior Court (Pappagianis, J.) that she is not a
member of the class of “legitimate” beneficiaries of the Dumaines and Dumaines New Fund trusts.
She raises five issues on appeal. First, she argues that the trial court erred in its construction of the
term “legitimate” as “lawfully begotten, born in wedlock.” Second, she asserts that the trial court
improperly relied on depositions containing inadmissible hearsay in determining the settler’s intent.
Third, she maintains that, even though she was adopted, the subsequent marriage of her natural
parents and their recognition of her as their child qualifies her as a beneficiary under the language of
the trusts. Fourth, she argues that the trial court’s determination of the settlors’ intent was
impermissible State action, violative of her rights under the equal protection and due process clauses
of the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions. Finally, she contends that the trial court
erred when it denied her request for attorney’s fees. For the reasons that followed, we affirm.
The patriarch of the Dumaine family business complex was Frederic C. Dumaine, Sr., who founded
the Amoskeag Company and amassed the wealth that formed the res of the trusts involved in this
litigation. Dumaines, a New Hampshire trust, was created by Frederic, Sr. in 1920. The Dumaines
209