Martin Trask, Jr. and Susan Schultz had a relationship but were never married. They lived together in Indiana until Trask, Jr. died in July 1962. At the time Trask, Jr. died, Schultz was pregnant. She delivered her child, Diane Trask, three months after his death in October 1962.

In December, 1962 a petition was filed in juvenile court to determine the child’s paternity and the court found that Martin Trask was the child’s father.

Theodore Trask, Martin’s Father, filed a probate case in Lake Superior Court as administrator of his son’s estate, in order to determine the heirs of his son’s estate. He obtained an order stating that Diane Trask was an heir entitled to inherit from Martin. Martin’s intestate estate had no assets.

Susan Schultz filed an application for child’s social security benefits for Diane based on Martin’s earnings record. But under social security’s definition of “child”, Diane would not have qualified. This is because under the applicable test, social security would look to Indiana law and find that the child did not qualify to inherit personal property from Martin under that state’s intestate succession laws. This was because paternity of the child had not been established during Martin’s lifetime and Martin had not married the child’s mother prior to his death.

But Mother argued that social security was bound by the Indiana probate court’s decision pursuant to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution and the principle of res judicata.

But the U.S. District Court in Indiana disagreed. The social security administration was not made a party to the probate case, nor could it have been. Only interested parties were entitled to a notice of hearing and the opportunity to contest. The probate court order had been entered unopposed (essentially a default judgment), and probably in contravention of Indiana law.

The upshot was that, unfortunately for the child and Mother, the denial of the application for child’s benefits was affirmed.

See Schultz v. Celebrezze, 267 Fed. Supp. 880 (7-29-67).

See also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 67-32c.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.