out of wedlock.
(1) For the purpose of intestate succession, if a relationship of parent and child must be
established to determine succession by, through, or from a person, a person born out
of wedlock is a child of the natural mother. That person is also a child of the natural
father if:
(a) The natural parents participated in a marriage ceremony before or after the
birth of the child, even though the attempted marriage is void; or
(b) In determining the right of the child or its descendants to inherit from or
through the father:
1. There has been an adjudication of paternity before the death of the
father; or
2. There has been an adjudication of paternity after the death of the father
based upon clear and convincing proof;
(c) In determining the right of the father or his kindred to inherit from or through
the child:
1. There has been an adjudication of paternity before the death of the child;
or
2. There has been an adjudication of paternity after the death of the child
based on clear and convincing proof and the evidence in such
adjudication shall have demonstrated that the father openly treated the
child as his, and the father did not follow a consistent policy of refusing
to support the child on the ground of nonpaternity.
(2) The terms and conditions set out in this section shall also apply in actions brought
pursuant to KRS 411.130 and 411.135.
Effective: July 15, 1988
History: Created 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 90, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: Harris v. Stewart, 981 S.W.2d 122 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
Harris v. Stewart, 981 S.W.2d 122 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8דNext, having argued that KRS 391.105 (governing the rights of a person bom out of wedlock to participate in intestate succession) is unconstitutional, he maintains that the court erred in upholding that statute.”
Rainey v. Chever, 527 U.S. 1044 (1999). “12, §508(2) (1995); Idaho Code §15-2-109 (b) (1979); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 391.105 (c)(2) (Michie Supp.”
Abby L. Dozier v. Walter H. Dozier, Jr. (Deceased) (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “100 (stating that “[t]he issue of all illegal or void marriages is considered as if born in lawful wedlock”); and KRS 391.105(1)(a) (explaining that for intestate inheritance purposes a “person born out of wedlock is .”
Rainey v. Chever, 527 U.S. 1044 (1999). “12, §508(2) (1995); Idaho Code §15-2-109 (b) (1979); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 391.105 (c)(2) (Michie Supp.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 391.105(1) — 1 case
Harris v. Stewart, 981 S.W.2d 122 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). “Next, having argued that KRS 391.105 (governing the rights of a person bom out of wedlock to participate in intestate succession) is unconstitutional, he maintains that the court erred in upholding that statute.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 391.105(1)(a) — 1 case
Abby L. Dozier v. Walter H. Dozier, Jr. (Deceased) (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “100 (stating that “[t]he issue of all illegal or void marriages is considered as if born in lawful wedlock”); and KRS 391.105(1)(a) (explaining that for intestate inheritance purposes a “person born out of wedlock is .”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 391.105(b)(2) — 1 case
Harris v. Stewart, 981 S.W.2d 122 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). “Next, having argued that KRS 391.105 (governing the rights of a person bom out of wedlock to participate in intestate succession) is unconstitutional, he maintains that the court erred in upholding that statute.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 391.105(l)(b)(2) — 1 case
Harris v. Stewart, 981 S.W.2d 122 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). “Next, having argued that KRS 391.105 (governing the rights of a person bom out of wedlock to participate in intestate succession) is unconstitutional, he maintains that the court erred in upholding that statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.