Estate of Stinchcomb, Matter of

Decision Date20 December 1983
Docket Number58384,Nos. 58383,58660,58712 and 58713,s. 58383
Citation674 P.2d 26
PartiesIn the Matter of the ESTATE OF Glen Clifford STINCHCOMB, Deceased. Corene Jeanie STINCHCOMB, Appellant, v. Glen Lee STINCHCOMB, Executor, Appellee. In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Glen Clifford STINCHCOMB, Deceased. Corene Jeanie STINCHCOMB, Appellant, v. Glen Lee STINCHCOMB, Executor, Appellee. In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Glen Clifford STINCHCOMB, Deceased. Corene Jeanie STINCHCOMB, Appellant, v. Glen Lee STINCHCOMB, Executor, Appellee. In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Glen Clifford STINCHCOMB, Deceased. Corene Jeanie STINCHCOMB, Appellant, v. Glen Lee STINCHCOMB, Executor, Appellee. In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Glen Clifford STINCHCOMB, Deceased. Corene Jeanie STINCHCOMB, Appellant, v. Glen Lee STINCHCOMB, Executor, Appellee.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Appeal from the District Court, Oklahoma County; Arthur Lory Rakestraw, District Judge.

This case is the consolidation of five (5) separate appeals. Jeanie Stinchcomb, appellant, contends that she was the common law wife of Glen C. Stinchcomb, the decedent and appellee's father, before they signed an antenuptial agreement, and before Mr. Stinchcomb made a codicil to his will. Therefore, she claims that the documents are void, and that she should get the one-third widow's share instead of the proceeds of a Texaco lease which was bequeathed to her in decedent's will. Appellant further claims that she is entitled to $30,000 that she withdrew from a safe deposit box that she and Mr. Stinchcomb held as joint tenants. The trial court ruled against appellant in both these matters, and further ordered appellant to reimburse appellee for any expenses connected with the lease, and to reimburse appellee the amount she was paid as widow's allowance during the proceedings. The reimbursement was to be done when appellant began receiving proceeds from the lease. Appellant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Jack L. Freeman, James H. Buxton, Freeman & Buxton, Edmond, for appellant.

Byrne A. Bowman, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

The parties to this appeal have each filed petitions for rehearing following the adoption of our unpublished opinion dated June 14, 1983. The appellant's petition for rehearing is denied, however the appellee's is granted, and the issue raised therein is dealt with in this opinion on rehearing.

In Texas in November 1971, Jeanie Stinchcomb, appellant, met Glen C. Stinchcomb, the decedent and appellee's father. Mr. Stinchcomb was still married at the time to his former wife, Agnes Stinchcomb. Appellant and Mr. Stinchcomb began seeing one another and in 1972, appellant moved to Oklahoma City, where Mr. Stinchcomb had arranged for her to have a furnished apartment. On August 7, 1975, Mr. Stinchcomb and Agnes Stinchcomb were divorced.

Appellant testified that within a week of the divorce, she and Mr. Stinchcomb had agreed to live together as husband and wife. In December 1975, appellant moved into Mr. Stinchcomb's house with him. Various testimony was given to the effect that Mr. Stinchcomb bought her two rings, referred to her as Mrs. Stinchcomb on several occasions, lived with her in a "typical" marriage setting, and that appellant's son introduced Mr. Stinchcomb as his stepfather. On the other hand, in June 1976, a new home was purchased by Mr. Stinchcomb, and he took the title in his name. He filed his income tax returns as a single man.

On January 9, 1978, the appellant and Mr. Stinchcomb signed an antenuptial agreement stating that both parties were single, but they intended to get married. Additionally, Mr. Stinchcomb made a codicil to his will leaving all of his furniture and household goods to appellant and an interest in his Northwest Expressway property from which appellant was to receive the proceeds of a Texaco service station lease. The proceeds are $48,000.00 per year rental for ten (10) years with options to renew.

On February 21, 1978, the couple had a ceremonial marriage performed in Rio Grande City, Texas.

On June 20, 1981, Mr. Stinchcomb suffered a stroke. After admitting him to the hospital, appellant went to the bank and got $30,000 from a safety deposit box. With this money she bought a mink coat, gave $5,000 to her lawyer and carried the remaining $20,000 in her car before delivering it to a friend from Texas for safekeeping. Further testimony was elicited to the effect that appellant forged Mr. Stinchcomb's signature to the assignment on a car title and had a new title issued to herself, and caused fictitious hotel registration bills to be prepared and introduced into evidence.

On September 17, 1981, Mr. Stinchcomb died. On September 22, appellant signed an affidavit stating that Mr. Stinchcomb died on September 17, leaving no valid will. Glen Lee Stinchcomb, appellee, was appointed as executor of his father's estate.

The trial court heard this case and held that appellant should only receive the interest in the lease property that Mr. Stinchcomb had left to her in the codicil to his will; thereby, upholding the validity of the antenuptial agreement, and giving no credence to the claims of appellant concerning the existence of a common-law marriage.

Appellant's basic contention is that she was the common law wife of Mr. Stinchcomb before the antenuptial agreement, codicil to the will, or ceremonial marriage. Therefore, she contends the antenuptial agreement is in essence a post nuptial agreement which purported to change the pre-existing common law marriage relationship, thus, rendering it void. Consequently, she wants the statutory one-third widow's share of the estate instead of the proceeds of the lease.

A party asserting a common law marriage must prove the following elements: an actual and mutual agreement between the spouses to be husband and wife; a permanent relationship; an exclusive relationship, proved by cohabitation as man and wife; and the parties to the marriage must hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife, Matter of Phifer's Estate, 629 P.2d 808 (Okl.App.1981). Appellant introduced extensive testimony that would seem to create a presumption of the existence of a common law marriage. However, a common law marriage must be established by evidence that is clear and convincing. Maxfield v. Maxfield, 258 P.2d 915 (Okl.1953). Several facts interrelate to destroy the apparent presumption: Mr. Stinchcomb purchased a house and took title in his name alone, the antenuptial agreement stated that the parties to the agreement were single, Mr. Stinchcomb filed his income tax return as a single man, and in the codicil to the will, Mr. Stinchcomb stated that he intended to marry appellant. The appellant failed to prove a pre-existing common law marriage by clear and convincing evidence; therefore, the antenuptial agreement is valid.

Appellant also contends that the cash in the safe deposit box was hers as a result of the Safe Deposit Box Rental Contract, which recites in part that the contents were subject to a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. The trial court held that the contents of the safe deposit box was the property of Mr. Stinchcomb and therefore belongs to the estate. We agree with the trial court and hold that although the Stinchcombs were joint lessees of the box, the Safe Deposit Box Rental Contract does not contain any language explicitly granting a joint tenancy in the contents of the box.

There are no Oklahoma cases directly on point on this issue, however in Annotation, 14 A.L.R.2d 948, 954, it is stated that in a clear majority of jurisdictions where the issue has arisen, deposit of articles in a jointly leased safe deposit box, of itself, works no change in title unless there is an express agreement that the contents of the box shall be joint property. The annotation notes that language in a lease descriptive of joint tenancy or of the incident of survivorship, unless clearly referable to the contents, is generally construed as running no further than use of the box. Words to the effect that the survivor has the right of possession and removal of contents are literally construed, so that the decedent's personal representative may require surrender of effects traceable to the decedent's ownership.

We find...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of State of Okl.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1996
    ...287, 288 (1980). See also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 748, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1391-92, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).10 Matter of Estate of Stinchcomb, Okl., 674 P.2d 26, 29 (1983).11 The terms of Art. 5 § 46, Okl. Const., state in pertinent part:"The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise p......
  • Richardson v. State, 68934
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 28, 1987
    ...evidence in Oklahoma and by the preponderance of the evidence in Texas. Maxfield v. Maxfield, 258 P.2d 915 (Okl.1953); In re Estate of Stinchcomb, 674 P.2d 26 (Okl.1983, on rehearing); Faglie v. Williams, 569 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1978). We find the appellant failed to meet his b......
  • Larman v. Larman, 89141.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1999
    ...of Estes, 1999 OK 59, 983 P.2d 438, 445, citing Davis v. Nat'l Bank of Tulsa, 1960 OK 151, ¶ 17, 353 P.2d 482; In re Estate of Stinchcomb, 1983 OK 120, 674 P.2d 26, 30; Foster v. Rose, 205 Okl. 397, 238 P.2d 332, 334 (1951). 8. Chastain v. Posey, 1983 OK 46, 665 P.2d 1179, 1182-83; Fletcher......
  • Brierton v. Burris (In re Whitehouse)
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 8, 2020
    ...by cohabitation as man and wife; (5) and the parties to the marriage must hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife. Estate of Stinchcomb , 1983 OK 120, ¶ 10, 674 P.2d 26. ¶18 Standefer clarified that elements two through five are evidence of the required mutual agreement or consent ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Cases in Controversy
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 3-2, January 1990
    • Invalid date
    ...as facts in other cases." Hansen, slip op. at 4. [13] Whyte v. Blair, 885 P.2d 791, 795 (Utah 1994). [14] See Stinchcomb v. Stinchcomb, 674 P.2d 26 (Okla. 1983) ("[A] common law marriage must be established by evidence that is clear and convincing."). The District of Columbia requires "uneq......

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