The case was brought before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court by three siblings, Rachel A. Bird Anderson, Marten Bird, and Matthew Bird. The siblings were in dispute over the meaning of a will that their grandmother, Anna Child Bird, drafted in 1941. The court held that “adopted children do not have the same rights as biological children to inherit the family fortune under wills written before 1958.” The reason for this is because the law of the states at the time that the will was written control the disposition of the property. Before 1958, the State of Massachusetts did not consider adopted children as heirs. The only way that the brothers could inherit is if the will expressly mentions them. In this ruling, the court ignored the passage of a 2009 law that retroactively sought to place adoptees and biological children on equal footing. The court’s ruling on this matter means that the two brothers cannot take from the grandmother’s trust either. The court reasoned that affluent families have time to write adopted children into the will, and the choice to not do this shows Anna Bird’s intent in this matter.
Edited: I have included a link to the court case at hand: Rachel A. Bird Anderson v. BNY Mellon, N.A., trustee, and others
See John R. Ellement, High Court: Adoptees Do Not Have Same Rights as Biological Relatives to Family Fortune in Wills Written Before 1958, Metro Desk, Aug. 28, 2012.
Special Thanks to Margaret Ryznar (Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law), Brian J. Cohan (Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Brian J. Cohan, P.C.), and Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.
