Trusts and Estates
Estate of Williams
Cite as D083713
Filed August 21, 2024
Fourth District, Div. Four
By Golnaz Yazdchi
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
https://www.sheppardmullin.com
Headnote: Estate Litigation – Omitted Child
Summary: To inherit a share of a parent’s estate as an omitted child, the child must show that the sole reason for omission was that the testator was unaware of the child’s birth.
Williams fathered seven children, five of whom were born out of wedlock and two of whom were the result of a marriage. Williams knew of the existence of all of his children but for one, Montgomery. Williams executed a trust in which he only named the two children of his marriage as the beneficiaries. The trust did not contain a general disinheritance clause. After Williams’s death, Montgomery, who at that point had connected with her half-siblings, received notification of the administration of Williams’s estate and trust, and thereafter petitioned to receive a share of his estate as an omitted child. The trial court granted nonsuit in favor of the named beneficiary children, and found that Montgomery failed to established that the reason Williams did not provide for her was “solely” because he was unaware of her birth.
The appellate court affirmed. A child born before execution of the relevant testamentary instrument is presumed to be intentionally omitted, unless the child shows that the testator was unaware of the child’s birth, and that the child was not provided for solely due to that unawareness. A general disinheritance clause is one method to demonstrate a decedent’s intent to omit unknown heirs, but it is not the only way. Here, Williams’s failure to provide anything to four of his known children evidenced an intent to provide only for the two children of his marriage, whom he named as beneficiaries.