Estate of Nation, Matter of

Decision Date30 June 1992
Docket NumberNo. 78918,78918
Citation834 P.2d 442,1992 OK 91
PartiesIn the Matter of the Estate of Bobby Dean NATION, Deceased. Doris Dean Nation LEE and Mark Nation, Appellants, v. Janice Marie NATION, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bobby Dean Nation, Deceased, Appellee.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
ORDER

Appellee's motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed as untimely. The order of the district court denying appellants' application to share as omitted children is an interlocutory order appealable by right. 58 O.S.1991, § 721(10) and Rule 1.60 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S.1991, ch. 15, app. 2. Appeals of interlocutory orders appealable by right in a probate proceeding must be commenced within thirty days from the date of the hearing at which the order was issued. Rule 1.61 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S.1991, ch. 15, app. 2. The interlocutory order on appeal was pronounced at the hearing on December 4, 1991, at which the appellants or the appellants' attorney were present, therefore the interlocutory order was issued at that hearing. This appeal was commenced on January 15, 1992, more than thirty days after the interlocutory order was issued. Thus, this appeal was not timely filed to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.

This dismissal shall not prejudice the rights of the appellants to reassert their application before the trial court prior to final decree of distribution of the estate and to seek appellate review of the final decree entered in the probate proceeding.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT.

LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and WATT, JJ., concur.

SUMMERS, J., concurs specially.

OPALA, C.J., and HODGES, V.C.J., dissent.

SUMMERS, Justice, concurring specially.

I agree with the majority in concluding that an order denying an appellant's application to share in an estate as a pretermitted child is an interlocutory order appealable by right. 58 O.S.1991 § 721(10). Since the case of In re Tayrien's Estate, 207 Okl. 401, 250 P.2d 16 (1952) appears to hold that such an order is not appealable under § 721, I would go a step further and expressly overrule In re Tayrien's Estate to the extent it is inconsistent with today's order.

OPALA, Chief Justice, with whom HODGES, Vice Chief Justice, joins, dissenting.

The court dismisses for untimeliness an appeal from a mid-probate order that denies appellants' claim--as unintentionally omitted children--to a statutory share of decedent's estate. 1 Today's opinion reasons that the order in contest is interlocutory 2 and hence must be appealed, 3 if at

                all, within thirty days of its rendition 4 rather than thirty days after its filing. 5  I must recede from the court's pronouncement.  I would review the nisi prius order at once because it is final as the disposition of a "collateral" ("off-track") 6 contest for pretermitted-heirship status.   This appeal, brought within thirty days of the order's filing, 7 is hence timely
                
I
A

CRITICAL FACTS

The father's [testator's] will was admitted to probate. 8 It bequeaths to his two children certain corporate stock in equal shares. Before his death the testator sold this stock. The children initiated a mid-probate proceeding for a distributive share of the estate, 9 urging that since their testamentary gift failed by ademption, 10 they should be declared 11 to stand as omitted

                heirs. 12  In support of their argument they point out the will contains no language that would disinherit them
                
B

ANALYSIS OF PROCEEDINGS IN PROBATE

A clearer perception of this litigation's anatomy emerges when the probate's various phases are arranged in trichotomous segments. The beginning stage of the proceeding was a petition to probate the document offered as the testament of Bobby Dean Nation, deceased. The will's admission to probate ended Stage I. The second stage was triggered by the children's application to settle a collateral (or off-track) issue--their omitted-heirship status. This stage is best described as an ancillary contest anterior to the estate's distribution pursuant to the will. It ended with the December 23rd order now under review, which concluded the off-track contest between the estate and the children qua omitted heirs. The third and final stage yet to follow is the administration of the estate and its distribution under the will. The court's Stage II decision now tendered for review (a) cuts off the children's interest in the estate, (b) extinguishes their right to share in its eventual distribution and (c) shuts them out of the Stage III proceedings. 13

II

THE OFF-TRACK CONTEST FOR UNINTENTIONALLY OMITTED-CHILD

STATUS RESULTED IN AN APPEALABLE ORDER THAT IS FINAL

Because the omitted-child statute 14 prescribes no limit for bringing a claim, we turn to extant case law in search of a pronouncement on the appropriate time to press the demand. A plea for omitted-child status may not be raised as a barrier to the will's admission to probate nor in a post-probate will contest. 15 If the will is legally executed, proved and found not vulnerable for (a) want of testamentary capacity, (b) undue influence, (c) fraud or (d) duress, it is admissible for probate. 16 One claiming omitted-heirship status may not seek partial distribution 17 of the estate within the parameters of 58 O.S.1991 § 621; 18 predecree The order for review here bears striking similarity to certain rulings that fall within the federal "collateral order" class. 24 The doctrine governing this class of decisions permits midstream appeals from certain orders that do not terminate a federal-court action. 25 Its origin is found in the United States Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the finality requirement in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. 26 Within this rather small class of at-once appealable off-track orders are those which (1) finally decide claims The mainstream proceeding in a testate decedent's probate is the orderly administration of the estate for final distribution in accordance with the will. 28 The will determines not only the testamentary gift's recipient but also the nature and amount of each beneficiary's bounty. During the course of the estate's administration the court may be called upon to make off-track rulings which are independent of or collateral to proceedings in the probate's mainstream. This takes place when claimants, as the children here, seek to establish their share and hence affect the distribution regime under the will. 29

                distribution is reserved for those whose right to inherit is unclouded. 19  While one may, of course, bring a claim for omitted-heirship status as an objection to the estate fiduciary's final account and petition for distribution, 20 an earlier resolution of the contest is nowhere inhibited. 21  So long as the children's demand does not challenge the will's factum or seek predecree distribution, they may initiate a collateral contest to have their omitted-child status determined at any time before the estate's distribution is effected. 22  Once the claimed status is denied, 23 the probate will not come to an end, but the order is nonetheless final because it carries the independent (off-track) contest to termination
                separable from the mainstream action, (2) are too important to be denied immediate appellate review and (3) are too independent of the main action to require an appellate court to defer consideration until the litigation's completion. 27  In my view the decision here under consideration substantially touches, if not totally meets, all the criteria of a collateral order
                

By applying for a statutory share of the estate, the children brought a contest quite apart from the probate's mainstream. Because of their legacy's ademption they will take nothing under the will's terms. 30 In a very real sense the court's off-track disposition of their application shut them out of the case; 31 they no longer qualify as parties with a claim to be pressed. 32

If the court were to treat this appeal as one from a final order, as I would do today, the appellate resolution of the issue before

                us would become the settled law of the case. 33  As a practical matter, the trial court has conclusively settled the disputed question. 34  Although the children will have another opportunity to renew their heirship-status claim (i.e., by raising it later as an objection to the final account and petition for distribution), our extant jurisprudence eloquently demonstrates that an aggrieved party's legal power to reassert a plea for relief after its initial denial, or a plaintiff's ability to "wire around" an adverse order and still remain in court, does not per se sap the decision of finality attributes.   For example:  (1) a condemnation order denying a challenge by condemnees to condemnor's power to take--by eminent domain generally or a specific property--can be renewed before the final condemnation decree;  yet the decision is at once appealable as final; 35  (2) the court's dismissal without prejudice or a suit's termination "otherwise than on the merits" is no bar to an action's later refiling; 36  yet the dismissal or termination order is at once appealable as final; 37  and lastly, (3) an order quashing process is no bar to issuance of an alias summons;  yet the order is at once appealable as final. 38  All these orders, just as the one  
                considered today, may be tendered for immediate appellate review.
                
III

BECAUSE THE CHILDREN'S AVENUE OF PROCEDURE WAS OBSCURELY

ARTICULATED AND CASE LAW MISLEADING, THIS APPEAL

SHOULD BE SAVED FROM DISMISSAL

The text of 58 O.S.1991 § 721(7), defines as appealable any order "[r]efusing ... the payment of a ... distributive share. " 39 Rule 1.10 40 indicates by reference that subdivision 7 orders are appealable as final. Extant jurisprudence refers to subdivision 7 orders as final. 41 Statute, rule, and case law together give the appearance of finality to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Rodgers v. Higgins
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 14 Abril 1993
    ... ... SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 22.33 (1985 Revision, 4th ed.), citing In re Swartz's Estate, 162 Misc. 46, 294 N.Y.S. 896, 902 (1937) ... 44 See Austin v. King, Okl., 404 P.2d 1009, 1014 ... Premature appeals are not unknown to our own jurisprudence. See Matter of Estate of Nation, Okl., 834 P.2d 442, 443 (1992) ... 89 The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § ... ...
  • In re Amendments to Okla. Supreme Court Rules
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 2013
    ...is appealable as a final order under 12 O.S.1991 § 681. Compare Williams v. Mulvihill, 1993 OK 5, 846 P.2d 1097 with In re Estate of Nation, 1992 OK 91, 834 P.2d 442;(123) 66 O.S.1991 § 56 (condemnation appeals);(134) 75 O.S.1991 § 323 (Administrative Procedures Act);(145) 82 O.S.1991 §§ 50......
  • Gilliland v. Chronic Pain Associates, Inc.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 19 Septiembre 1995
    ...new trial motion does not extend the time to appeal from an interlocutory order (citing 12 O.S.Supp.1993 § 990.2 and Matter of Estate of Nation, Okl., 834 P.2d 442 (1992)).6 The pertinent portions of the January 21, 1994 order are:" * * * The failure to disclose to Myers the past relationsh......
  • Williams v. Mulvihill
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 26 Enero 1993
    ... ... WILLIAMS, Appellant, ... Melinda McCaul MULVIHILL, Personal Representative of the ... Estate of Dwight J. Wilson, Deceased, Appellee ... No. 79453 ... Supreme Court of Oklahoma ... For the distinction between "parties " to probate and merely "interested parties," see Matter of Estate of Goyne, Okl., 733 P.2d 391, 394-395 (1987) ... 26 Under the terms of 58 O.S.1991 § ... 28 In Estate of Nation, Okl., 834 P.2d 442 (1992), the appellants, claiming to be pretermitted heirs, sought to appeal ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT