Estate of Martino - Case Brief

Case Number: D080846
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
Date Filed: September 01, 2025

← Back to Case Summary

Holding

The court held that a stepchild who is not a biological offspring may assert heirship under Probate Code § 6453(a) by establishing a “natural parent‑child” relationship through the presumption of parentage in Family Code § 7611(d); the existence of Probate Code § 6454 does not foreclose this alternative pathway, and the petitioning stepchild therefore had standing to claim intestate succession.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that sharpens the interface between California’s Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) and its intestate succession scheme, the Fourth Appellate District affirmed a probate court’s grant of heirship to Nick Zambito, a stepchild who never shared a genetic link with the decedent, Nick Martino. The ruling confirms that “natural parentage” for probate purposes is a statutory construct that can be satisfied by the presumption of parentage, not merely by biology, and that the separate step‑child provision of Probate Code § 6454 is not exclusive.

Procedural backdrop – After Martino died intestate in 2020, his stepson Nick Zambito filed a petition under Probate Code § 6454 seeking heirship as a “stepchild heir.” The petition was later amended to rely on Probate Code § 6453(a) and (b)(2), which invoke the UPA’s presumption of parentage and the “open‑hold‑out” rule of Family Code § 7611(d). The biological children, Tracey and Joseph Martino (the Objectors), objected, arguing that Zambito lacked standing because he was not a biological child and that § 6454 was the sole avenue for a stepchild to inherit. The trial court, after a five‑day bench trial, rejected Zambito’s equitable‑adoption claim but granted his heirship petition on both § 6453 theories. The Objectors appealed.

Key facts – Zambito’s mother, Lula Taylor, married Martino in 1966 and lived with him for six years; Zambito, born in 1961, grew up in the Martino household and considered Martino his “true father.” Friends and family repeatedly referred to Zambito as Martino’s son, and Martino maintained regular contact with Zambito through the latter’s military career and into his final years. No biological connection existed between Martino and Zambito, and no adoption ever occurred, although Zambito asserted that Martino would have adopted him but for a “legal barrier” (the then‑living first husband, Domenick).

Statutory framework – Intestate succession is governed by Probate Code §§ 6400‑6402, which define “child” and “parent” in terms of the parent‑child relationship established for probate purposes. Sections 6450‑6455 specifically delineate how that relationship is determined. § 6450 declares that a parent‑child relationship exists between a person and the person’s “natural parents,” regardless of marital status. § 6453 provides two routes to establish a “natural parent”:

Subdivision (a) – a relationship is “presumed and not rebutted” under the UPA (Fam. Code §§ 7600‑7611).
Subdivision (b)(2) – clear and convincing evidence that the alleged parent “openly held out” the child as his own, again referencing the UPA.

Section 6454 creates a separate, more restrictive pathway for step‑ or foster‑children, requiring (a) a relationship that began in minority and persisted throughout the joint lifetimes, and (b) proof that the stepparent would have adopted the child but for a legal barrier.

Court’s analysis

Standing under § 6453(a) – The appellate court emphasized that the UPA’s definition of “natural parent” expressly includes non‑biological parents (Fam. Code § 7601(a)). The presumption in § 7611(d) is triggered when a person “receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.” The court found that the factual record—home residence, long‑term relationship, and public acknowledgment by Martino and his acquaintances—satisfied this presumption and was not rebutted. Accordingly, Zambito possessed standing to claim heirship under § 6453(a).

Compatibility of §§ 6453 and 6454 – The Objectors argued that § 6454 was the exclusive route for stepchildren, but the court rejected that reading. It applied the canon of statutory harmony, noting that § 6454 does not expressly preclude the use of § 6453, nor does either statute contain an express exception. The two provisions address overlapping but distinct factual scenarios: § 6454 focuses on continuity of the relationship and a legal barrier to adoption, while § 6453 hinges on the statutory presumption of parentage and open hold‑out. Because the statutes are not irreconcilable, they may operate concurrently, allowing a stepchild to invoke either pathway when its factual predicates are met. The court cited Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (55 Cal. 4th 783) and People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (81 Cal. App. 5th 851) for the principle that statutes should be read to give effect to all provisions.

Judicial estoppel – The Objectors also raised a late‑filed claim of judicial estoppel, contending that Zambito’s prior Nevada probate proceeding, in which he was identified as Domenick’s “natural father,” barred his present claim. The appellate court found the defense forfeited because it was never pleaded or developed at trial, and the Nevada record did not contain a judicial finding of parentage. Even assuming preservation, the court held the argument would fail on the merits, as the UPA permits multiple “natural parents” and the Nevada proceeding did not establish a contrary position.

No reversible error – The appellate court noted that the Objectors did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Zambito’s § 6453 findings. Under the standard of review for probate findings, the trial court’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error; none was shown. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the probate court’s order and awarded costs to the respondent.

Implications – This decision clarifies that stepchildren may rely on the UPA’s presumption of parentage to secure intestate shares, even when a step‑child relationship is also covered by § 6454. Practitioners should recognize that the existence of a step‑child provision does not foreclose a presumption‑based claim, and that the “open‑hold‑out” evidence—testimony from friends, references in correspondence, and the decedent’s own language—can be decisive. The ruling also underscores the importance of timely pleading of defenses such as judicial estoppel; failure to do so results in forfeiture.

Unresolved questions – While the court harmonized §§ 6453 and 6454, it left open how courts will handle cases where both statutes are satisfied but lead to conflicting inheritance shares among multiple claimants. Additionally, the decision did not address whether a stepchild who also qualifies under § 6454 may claim a larger share than a presumption‑based heir, a question that may surface as more step‑children invoke these statutes.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code §§ 11700, 6400‑6402, 6450‑6455 (including §§ 6453(a), 6453(b)(2), 6454, 6455)
Family Code §§ 7600‑7612 (UPA), 7611(d) (presumption of parentage), 7630(c), 7540, 9300 (adoption of adults)
Uniform Parentage Act (as incorporated in Family Code §§ 7600‑7612)

Major Cases Cited

Martinez v. Vaziri, 246 Cal.App.4th 373 (2016) – de novo review of probate statutes.
Estate of Britel, 236 Cal.App.4th 127 (2015) – definition of “heir” under intestate succession.
Estate of Ford, 32 Cal.4th 160 (2004) – scope of §§ 6450‑6455.
Estate of Chambers, 175 Cal.App.4th 891 (2009) – application of § 6453.
Estate of Burden, 146 Cal.App.4th 1021 (2007) – natural parent definition.
Scott v. Thompson, 184 Cal.App.4th 1506 (2010) – incorporation of UPA into probate code.
Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 108 (2005) – presumed fatherhood under § 7611(d).
In re Nicholas H., 28 Cal.4th 56 (2002) – “open‑hold‑out” requirement.
In re D.M., 210 Cal.App.4th 541 (2012) – non‑biological presumed fathers.
A.G. v. County of Los Angeles, 28 Cal.App.5th 373 (2018) – standing under presumed parentage.
In re A.A., 114 Cal.App.4th 771 (2003) – presumed father over biological father.
In re Alexander P., 4 Cal.App.5th 475 (2016) – stepfather as presumed parent.
Wehsener v. Jernigan, 86 Cal.App.5th 1311 (2022) – natural parent heirship under § 6453.
Estate of Joseph, 17 Cal.4th 203 (1998) – legal barrier requirement in § 6454.
Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (2012) – statutory harmony.
People v. Superior Court of Riverside County, 81 Cal.App.5th 851 (2022) – harmonizing statutes.
Estate of Bassi, 234 Cal.App.2d 529 (1965) – inheritance from multiple parental stocks.
Estate of Franco, 87 Cal.App.5th 1270 (2023) – marital presumption limits.
Estate of Cornelius, 35 Cal.3d 461 (1984) – presumption of parentage for children of spouses.