Ehrenclou

*367 Opinion

On a petition for instructions regarding the proper distribution of the remaining assets held in a trust, the court ruled that adults adopted under Colorado’s adult adoption statute did not qualify as “issue” of the person adopting them. The adopted adults, joined by a group of intervening charities, appeal. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In late 1954, Jacob Paley (Jacob) created a trust (the 1954 trust), which, upon his death, would provide for his adopted daughter Jacqueline Paley Wolber (Jacqueline) and Jacob’s grandchildren. 1 Now, some 50 years later, we are called upon to decide how the remaining assets of that trust are to be distributed.

Jacob died in 1960. Under the terms of the 1954 trust, upon Jacob’s death the assets were divided between Jacqueline and “each of her children then living.” The shares of Jacqueline’s “children then living” were placed in separate trusts, allowing discretionary pay-outs for support, maintenance, comfort and education, and requiring one-third of the principal to be distributed to the children at ages 30, 35, and 40. Jacqueline’s share was also retained in trust from which she received the net income…

There is nothing wrong with the majority opinion; the result appears to be compelled by connecting the dots of precedent. I write separately, however, because today’s result is actually quite anomalous and appears ultimately contrary to what the trustor probably wanted. It is only by the twist of this state’s wholesale incorporation of other states’ law as to the status of an adopted person—the sort of jack-in-the-box effect about which a trustor is likely to be blissfully unconcerned when deciding which state’s laws should govern his trust—that we reach the result we do.

*378 Consider the almost ludicrous drafting problem the rule we apply today imposes. Suppose you were drafting Jacob Paley’s trust and you wanted the California rule that treats adult adoptees as children for all purposes, not just heirship, to govern. (See, e.g., Estate of Tibbetts (1941) 48 Cal.App.2d 177, 178 [ 119 P.2d 368 ] [“Under the law of this state, there is no doubt that an adopted child is a ‘lineal descendant’ of the adopting parent. . . .”].)

You would probably think it would be sufficient to say, “this trust shall be construed according to the laws of the state of California.” That would be…

Morrison & Foerster, Shirley M. Hufstedler, Joseph L. Wyatt, Jr., and Sheila O. Recio, Los Angeles, for Intervener and Appellant.

Loeb & Loeb, Andrew S. Garb and David C. Nelson; Oldman, Cooley, Leighton & Sallus and Marc L. Sallus, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

IKOLA, J.

On a petition for instructions regarding the proper distribution of the remaining assets held in a trust, the court ruled that adults adopted under Colorado's adult adoption statute did not qualify as "issue" of the person adopting them. The adopted adults, joined by a group of intervening charities, appeal. We affirm the judgment.

In late 1954, Jacob Paley (Jacob) created a trust (the 1954 trust), which, upon his death, would provide for his adopted daughter Jacqueline Paley Wolber (Jacqueline) and Jacob's grandchildren. [1] Now, some 50 years later, we are called upon to decide how the remaining assets of that trust are to be distributed.

Jacob died in 1960. Under the terms of the 1954 trust, upon Jacob's death the assets were divided between Jacqueline and "each of her children then living." The shares of Jacqueline's "children then living" were placed in separate trusts, allowing…