For inheritance purposes, a child born out of wedlock stands in the same relation to his mother and her kindred, and she and her kindred to the child, as if that child had been born in wedlock. For like purposes, every such child stands in identical relation to his father and his kindred, and the latter and his kindred to the child, whenever: (a) the father, in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness acknowledges himself to be the father of the child, (b) the father and mother intermarried subsequent to the child's birth, and the father, after such marriage, acknowledged the child as his own or adopted him into his family, (c) the father publicly acknowledged such child as his own, receiving it as such, with the consent of his wife, if he is married, into his family and otherwise treating it as if it were a child born in wedlock, or (d) the father was judicially determined to be such in a paternity proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction. For all purposes, the issue of all marriages null in law, or dissolved by divorce, are deemed to have been born in wedlock. R.L.1910, § 8420; Laws 1977, c. 36, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1977.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases, 1953–2004 · leading case:
Casey v. Self, 837 P.2d 463 (Okla. 1990).
Casey v. Self, 837 P.2d 463 (Okla. 1990).
· cites it 19× “The issues presented are (1) the constitutionality of Okla.Stat. tit. 84, § 215 (1981), 1 which provides for the inheritance of a child born out of wedlock, and (2) the degree of proof required to show paternity of a child born out of wedlock in order to inherit from a father.”
Matter of Est. of King, 837 P.2d 463 (Okla. 1991).
· cites it 5× “We find that Okla. Stat. tit. 84, § 215 is constitutional.”
In Re Est. of Geller, 1999 OK CIV APP 45 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “¶ 8 The special administrator moved to strike White’s pleadings on the ground that she had no standing to pursue her claims of inheritance as a pretermitted grandchild in the probate court due to her undisputed inability to establish any of the four grounds set forth in 84…”
In Re the Est. of Marriott, 515 P.2d 571 (Okla. 1973).
· cites it 3× “The Oklahoma statute which pertains to inheritance by illegitimate children, 84 O.S.1971, § 215 provides: “Every illegitimate child is an heir of the person who in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness, acknowledges himself to be the father of such child * * *…”
Benson v. Roberson, 558 P.2d 384 (Okla. 1976).
· cites it 3× “However, other statutes pertinent to this case are 84 O.S.1971, § 215 : “Every illegitimate child is an heir of the person who in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness, acknowledges himself to be the father of such child; .”
Hulett v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. in Clinton, 1998 OK 21 (Okla. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Although under 84 O.S.1991, § 215 such an acknowledgment is a method by which an out-of-wedlock child may *887 show he/she is entitled to inherit from his father and his father's kindred, no evidence was submitted this acknowledgment was actually signed by Egon in the presence…”
Bridgeford v. Est. of Chamberlin, 573 P.2d 694 (Okla. 1977).
“Appellant submits several propositions of error, including an attack on the constitutionality of 84 O.S.1971 § 215. 1 We affirm the trial court because we find testator, by his will, intentionally disinherited appellant without consideration of the constitutionality of such…”
Colpitt v. Cheatham, 267 P.2d 1003 (Okla. 1954).
· cites it 2× “By this interpretation, the amendment made the status of a child with reference to inheritance from his father similar to that of a child acknowledged pursuant to the requirements of 84 O.S.1951 § 215. when the natural parents shall not have intermarried.”
Par. v. Ned, 264 P.2d 762 (Okla. 1953).
· cites it 2× “) The above constituted a sufficient acknowledgment of Elsie by John Ned, under Title 84 O.S.1951, § 215, to take her estate out from under the operation of Title 84, O.”
In Re Est. of Gentry, 2004 OK CIV APP 34 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “¶ 4 In 1964, 84 O.S.1961 § 215 provided one way to legitimize a child for inheritance purposes: 2 Every illegitimate child is an heir of the person who in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness, acknowledges himself to be the father of such child .”
Cox v. State Indus. Court, 397 P.2d 668 (Okla. 1964).
· cites it 2× “1961 § 55, and 84 O.S.1961 § 215. 10 O.S.1961 § 55, provides: “The father of an illegitimate child by publicly acknowledging it as his own, receiving it as such, with the consent of his wife, if he is married, into his family, and otherwise treating it as if it were a legitimate…”
Vincent v. Sutherland, 691 P.2d 85 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “s filed an answer offering as their principal defense a legal conclusion to the effect that plaintiff was not á child of her mother within the meaning of her grandfather’s will because of certain surrealistic conceptual fictions created by ancient Anglo-Saxon common law and by…”
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.