Brown v. Chapman (In re Jones)
| Docket Number | 120451 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 OK CIV APP 48 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Estate of Dwight Jones, Deceased, v. RANDY BROWN, Appellant, v. v. v. LISA RENEA CHAPMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Mandate Issued: 12/13/2023
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GARVIN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE STEVEN KENDALL, TRIAL JUDGE
Brett Agee, Samuel K. Davis, GARVIN, AGEE, CARLTON, P.C., Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, for Appellant
Dean Hart, Jr., HART & HART, Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, for Appellee.
¶1 Randy Brown claims he is the biological child of Dwight Jones, deceased, and that Dwight Jones unintentionally omitted him from his will. "When any testator omits to provide in his will for any of his children, or for the issue of any deceased child unless it appears that such omission was intentional, such child, or the issue of such child, must have the same share in the estate of the testator, as if he had died intestate, and succeeds thereto as provided in the preceding section." 84 O.S. §132. Relying on §132, Randy Brown objected to the final account of Dwight Jones' estate.
¶2 Decedent's daughter, Lisa Renea Chapman, is the personal representative of the estate. She does not concede Randy Brown is a biological child. Further, she argues Dwight Jones intentionally omitted him by deliberately not providing for unknown lineal descendants, a class of persons that includes Randy Brown.
¶3 The appealed order states: "[I]t appears to the Court that the decedent, Dwight Jones, intentionally omitted all lineal descendants, known or unknown, and that Randy Brown is not entitled to any part of the Estate of the decedent Dwight Jones." This is an appealable interlocutory order because it affects a substantial right in a probate cause. 58 O.S. §721 (10). Okla. Sup. Ct. Rule 1.60(h). After consideration of the appellate briefs and oral argument we review the cause de novo because the question involves interpretation and application of a statute. In re City of Durant, 2002 OK 52, ¶2, 50 P.3d 218 220.
¶4 The purpose of §132 is to protect the right of issue to share in the estate unless the will itself gives clear expression of an intentional omission. Crump's Estate v. Freeman, 1980 OK 80, ¶3, 614 P.2d 1096, 1097. When a will fails to provide for a child or issue it is presumed to have been unintentional. Id. at ¶8. The clearest way for a testator to intentionally omit a child is to identify the child by name and expressly state the named child is to receive nothing. Estate of James, 2020 OK 7, ¶19, 472 P.3d 205, 211. But a testator may also exclude a child by class. Crump's Estate, ¶6 (). Since Dwight Jones did not name Randy Brown in his will we must determine from the four corners of the will whether Jones intentionally omitted him by class. The primary task is to give effect to the intent of the testator. Estate of Chester, 2021 OK 12, ¶18, 497 P.3d 284, 287.
¶5 In his will, Dwight Jones declared he has two children, Lisa Chapman and Kerri Jones. He named Joshua Chapman as his grandchild. He then stated, "I have no other children or grandchildren, natural or adopted, living or deceased." He gave property to his grandson and two nephews and directed that the residue be given to his daughter, Lisa Chapman. He disinherited his daughter Kerri Jones:
¶6 The will directs that Lisa Chapman be appointed as personal representative and it outlines her powers. In the last section of his will, Dwight Jones made the following declaration which is the focus of the parties' arguments in this appeal:
I have carefully considered each of the provisions contained in this my Last Will and Testament. This instrument contains my directions as to how and to whom I want my property distributed after my death. I have carefully considered my family, including all of my known and unknown lineal descendants, together with all of my other family members, immediate and remote. If I have not provided for any person in this my Last Will and Testament, then I declare and emphasize that I have intentionally and deliberately not provided for that person.
¶7 In Estate of Woodward, 1991 OK 25, 807 P.2d 262, the court rejected the argument that the testator intended to omit her two grandchildren. An intentional omission was not supported by strong and convincing language and the grandchildren were omitted heirs under §132. In her will, Flora Woodward, deceased, gave 75 acres to her son Jewell, other real estate and personal property to her son, Jerry, and one dollar to her daughter, Violet. The final sentence of the will provided: "All other persons are excluded from receiving anything from my estate, except as follows: To my daughter-in-law, Adria Cradduck, I leave my diamond and ruby rings." Flora Woodward had grandchildren (the offspring of a deceased child) and they brought an action claiming a share under §132. The court held that the word "persons" in the phrase "all other persons are excluded" could not be a class of heirs which the testator intended to omit. According to the court, Woodward, ¶8.
¶8 Relying on Woodward, Randy Brown argues Dwight Jones did not clearly exclude him. He contends the omission language in paragraph 12 means nothing more than "If I didn't provide for any person, then it was intentional." Paragraph 12 is the end of the will, and Randy Brown maintains it is boilerplate and not reflective of the testator's intent.
¶9 Lisa Chapman relies on a different sentence in paragraph 12: "I have carefully considered my family, including all of my known and unknown lineal descendants, together with all of my other family members, immediate and remote." Ms. Chapman urges that Randy Brown is a member of the class "unknown lineal descendants" and the testator intentionally disinherited any persons in that class.
¶10 A testator's intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will and all parts of a will...
To continue reading
Request your trial