ILNews

Child must show she is born out of wedlock to inherit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ruling on the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plain language of Indiana Code Section 29-1-2-7 requires a child to show she is born out of wedlock for inheritance purposes.

There have been other cases that appear to support the claim a child must show she’s born out of wedlock before application of I.C. Section 29-1-2-7(b), which governs the paternal inheritance to, through, and from children born out of wedlock, but none addressed the issues specifically, noted Judge Nancy Vaidik.

In Victor C. Regalado v. Estate of Joseph Regalado and Paula Heffelfinger, No. 64A05-0911-CV-672, the appellate court unanimously reversed summary judgment for Paula Heffelfinger in Victor Regalado’s petition to determine heirship, which alleged she was not Joseph Regalado’s half-sister. Joseph Regalado received a $15 million settlement from the City of Chicago in 2000 and died intestate in 2004.

His father, Baltasar, had married Heffelfinger’s mother in 2003, when Heffelfinger was 35 years old. They later annulled the marriage in 2005. In the agreement order of annulment, which dealt with property settlement, Baltasar acknowledged Heffelfinger as his biological daughter.

Heffelfinger designated the annulment order, Baltasar’s unsworn July 2003 petition for leave to make gifts in guardianship, which identifies her as Joseph’s sister, a 2003 birthday card he signed as “dad,” a 2004 sworn petition for the appointment of administrator, which identifies her as Joseph’s half-sister, and a 2007 siblingship report stating Heffelfinger and another brother, Tony, have a 98.1 percent probability of being half-siblings.

I.C. Section 29-1-2-7(b)(4) applies to the instant case, which requires for Heffelfinger to inherit from Joseph that the putative father marries the mother of the child and acknowledges the child to be his own.

The designated evidence was sufficient to show that Baltasar acknowledged Heffelfinger as his biological daughter. However, she was unable to show that she was a child born out of wedlock. To be born out of wedlock, the mother must be unmarried when the child is born or married when the child is born, but not to the child’s biological father.

Heffelfinger didn’t show her mother’s marital status at the time of her birth. Baltasar’s acknowledgment of Heffelfinger alone doesn’t establish him as her biological father, wrote Judge Vaidik. There is a marriage, but bare acknowledgement of paternity. In addition, the siblingship report only shows a 98.1 percent probability she is the half-sibling of Tony. Under the statute controlling paternity, if the result of the test is at least a 99 percent probability the man is the father, then it’s presumed he is the biological father.

The judges also rejected Heffelfinger’s argument that Baltasar’s acknowledgment of her in the 2005 annulment order is definitive in establishing paternity. It appears her argument is one of collateral estoppel. The parties’ acknowledgment of Heffelfinger as Baltasar’s biological daughter is gratuitous because the subject matter of the order is a property settlement and because the annulment court will never determine issues of custody and support for Heffelfinger, wrote the judge. The court remanded for further proceedings.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT