In 1991, the granddaughter of IBM executive Thomas Watson, Olive, adopted her long-time partner, Patricia Spado, in Maine. Both women were in their 40s. They claimed their residency at the Watson estate on North Haven.

A year later, Spado and Watson’s relationship ended, but the adoption remained. When Olive’s mother died in 2005, Spado tried to access her inheritance as a legal heir, a recognition the Watson family tried to invalidate.

The probate judge who approved the adoption annulled it, a decision Spado has appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

The court has its hands full with this case, which has gossip-page value for its insiders look into a wealthy family, and broaches the difficult discussion about the legal recognition of same-sex couples.

For Maine jurists, though, the case rests upon one question: whether Spado and Watson, in executing their adult adoption in Maine, did so legally as residents of the state. Our sense is no.

New York, the home state of Spado and Watson, wouldn’t have allowed their adoption. Maine statutes did. This state is the backdrop to this drama, because its laws suited the desired ends, at the time, of Spado and Watson.

What’s important for Maine is how the court now elects to define residency, in light of this case.

In Maine adoption proceedings, according to The Associated Press, the adoptee is required to live here, and the adoptor is required to reside here. Neither term – live nor reside – is explicitly defined within statute.

There are many definitions, however, indicating Maine residency should be held to a high standard.

For in-state tuition at the University of Maine, for example, a student must prove they live in Maine for purposes beyond just an education. “A residence established for purposes for attending [the] UMS shall not by itself constitute residency,” the university’s Web site states.

For taxation, standards are more strict. The Maine Revenue Service considers statutory residents as persons who spend 183 days or more in Maine during a tax year, or who own a “permanent place of abode” in the state.

The latter’s caveat: “A place of abode is not deemed permanent if it is maintained only during a temporary stay in Maine for the accomplishment of a particular purpose.” The MRS specifically cites vacation properties (cottages, cabins, camps, etc.) as non-permanent abodes under the residency definition.

Maine’s adoption statute has is too lax on residency. The Watson case gives the court an opportunity to tighten it, and further clarify who is – and who is not – a legal Maine resident.

It is now harder in Maine to get in-state college tuition, or pay income tax, than execute an adoption.

This is a weakness in law the court must fix.