B-143945, SEP. 20, 1960

B-143945, SEP. 20, 1960

TO MR. JOHN TOMASIN, ESQUIRE:

ON AUGUST 29, 1960, YOU REQUESTED CERTAIN INFORMATION CONCERNING OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 24, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DORIS M. WERMANN AS COMMON-LAW WIFE (WIDOW) OF LOUIS G. WERMANN, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, PICATINNY ARSENAL, DOVER, NEW JERSEY.

THE CLAIM, WHICH WAS FORWARDED HERE BY THE PICATINNY ARSENAL, INVOLVED ONLY THE COMPENSATION DUE MR. WERMANN AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH ON JULY 18, 1960. PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE IS GOVERNED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 3, 1950, 64 STAT. 395, 5 U.S.C. 61F-61K, AND OUR SETTLEMENT WAS LIMITED TO COMPENSATION DUE MR. WERMANN AS DEFINED BY SECTION 2 OF THAT ACT, 64 STAT. 395, 5 U.S.C. 61G. ANY CLAIM DORIS M. WERMANN MAY HAVE FOR BENEFITS UNDER CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT OR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE IS FOR SUBMISSION TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

REGARDING THE RIGHT OF THE TWO CHILDREN BORN TO THE CLAIMANT AND MR. WERMANN TO THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE 1950 ACT, THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT SINCE THE ABOVE REFERRED-TO ACT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY LIMIT ELIGIBILITY OF CHILDREN TO LEGITIMATE CHILDREN, THE LAW OF THE DOMICILE OF THE DECEDENT MUST BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED EMPLOYEE CAN INHERIT FROM HIM. THE CLAIMANT IN HER AFFIDAVIT OF JULY 20, 1960, AVERS THAT SHE AND MR. WERMANN LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE FROM JULY 1952, IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, TO THE DATE OF HIS DEATH. SINCE, UNDER TITLE 37, SECTION 1-10 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY, COMMON-LAW MARRIAGES ENTERED INTO IN THAT STATE AFTER DECEMBER 1, 1939, ARE NOT RECOGNIZED WE MUST CONCLUDE, FROM THE INFORMATION NOW AVAILABLE, THAT THE CHILDREN BORN TO THE CLAIMANT AS A RESULT OF HER RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. WERMANN ARE ILLEGITIMATE. TITLE 3A, SECTION 4-7 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY PROVIDES THAT AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD CANNOT INHERIT FROM ITS FATHER UNLESS THE PARENTS ,MARRY SUBSEQUENT TO HIS BIRTH AND RECOGNIZE AND TREAT HIM AS THEIR CHILD.'

SINCE THE FILE PROVIDES NO INFORMATION TENDING TO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE CLAIMANT OR HER CHILDREN TO THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION THERE SEEMS LITTLE REASON TO HOLD PAYMENT IN ABEYANCE SHOULD A CLAIM BE ASSERTED FROM THE PERSON OR PERSONS PROPERLY ENTITLED TO PAYMENT UNDER THE 1950 ACT. HOWEVER, SHOULD YOU WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FURNISH FURTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE RIGHT OF THE CLAIMANT OR HER CHILDREN TO THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION, WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY DESIGNATING YOU TO REPRESENT HER BEFORE OUR OFFICE, WE WOULD RECONSIDER YOUR REQUEST TO DEFER PAYMENT PENDING A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE CLAIMANT AND HER CHILDREN.