Hunter v. Koisch

I respectfully dissent. The majority claims to have avoided interpreting the phrase “exclusive of adopted children” by holding the clause does not apply to appellant. The majority reasons the legislature did not intend to give adopted children preferential treatment. The majority states: “The confusion arises, however, in the provision, which at first reading appears to, for some unexplained reason, give only adopted children the prerogative of voiding the testator’s will. We agree that a reading of that provision would lead one to logically conclude this to be the intended purpose....”

The…