In a move to protect her lovers’ financial interest, Watson, heiress to an IBM fortune, adopted her lesbian lover Spado back in 1991 and, though they broke up one year later, the two lived together until 2005. Upon their breakup, however, Spado began going after Olive’s father Thomas’ fortune.
Unfortunately for Watson, Spado used the adoption to claim a chunk of the IBM honcho’s coffers. Olive and her family objected, saying that Spado had no claim to the wealth.
Spado, of course, disagreed, but found her dreams threatened when a judge annulled their adoption.
Like all good high society inheritance fights, this one’s returning to the courts in the form of an appeal…
In their legal appeal brief, Spado’s lawyers argue against annulling an adoption that had been allowed to stand for so long on the basis of undefined domicile requirements.
“Most disturbing, this challenge can come not just in a direct appeal, but at any time, even decades later, in a collateral attack long after final judgment and longstanding reliance on the adoption,” the brief stated.
Even though the heirs reached their goal of annulling the adoption, they also are appealing in a bid to broaden the foundation of their case. Their attorney, Stephen Hanscom, plans to argue that the adoption should also have been annulled on other grounds: that it was obtained by two partners seeking to manufacture inheritance rights and that they did not intend to establish a normal parent-child relationship.
The Maine Superior Court will likely pick up the case this fall. If this case can teach us anything, it’s that you shouldn’t adopt your lover. Sure, it can help secure their financial status, but, come on!, it’s just weird!