Felts v. Massey (In re Georges)

• Docket Number: 120989
• Decision Date: 19 December 2023
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BASIL GEORGES v. POPPI ELENI GEORGES MASSEY, Individually, as Co-Personal Representative of this Estate and as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Poppi Eleni Georges Massey, SUZANNE VINSON GEORGES LOPEZ, Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Suzanne Vinson Georges, now Lopez, GEORGE L. SARTAIN, JR., Individually, and as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trusts for Poppi Eleni Georges Massey, as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Suzanne Vinson Georges, now Lopez, and as Co-Trustees of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Alexander James Georges, THE HEIRS OF BASIL GEORGES, Deceased, if living, or if dead, their heirs, successors and assigns, whether known or unknown and whether living or dead, POPPI AND SUZANNE 1999 OIL PROPERTIES LP, a Texas limited partnership, and POPPI & SUZANNE OIL PROPERTIES LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Respondents/Appellees. JAMES R. FELTS, Intervenor/Appellant,
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

2023 OK 123

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BASIL GEORGES

JAMES R. FELTS, Intervenor/Appellant,
v.
POPPI ELENI GEORGES MASSEY, Individually, as Co-Personal Representative of this Estate and as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Poppi Eleni Georges Massey, SUZANNE VINSON GEORGES LOPEZ, Individually and as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Suzanne Vinson Georges, now Lopez, GEORGE L. SARTAIN, JR., Individually, and as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trusts for Poppi Eleni Georges Massey, as Co-Trustee of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Suzanne Vinson Georges, now Lopez, and as Co-Trustees of the Basil Georges Estate Trust for Alexander James Georges, THE HEIRS OF BASIL GEORGES, Deceased, if living, or if dead, their heirs, successors and assigns, whether known or unknown and whether living or dead, POPPI AND SUZANNE 1999 OIL PROPERTIES LP, a Texas limited partnership, and POPPI & SUZANNE OIL PROPERTIES LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Respondents/Appellees.

No. 120989

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 19, 2023

THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DARBY, J.

¶1 James Felts, Appellant, filed a petition to vacate the final decree in a probate case and sought to intervene in the estate of Basil Georges, Decedent, on the theory that he was a pretermitted heir. In response to Appellant's petition, Poppi Eleni Georges Massey, Suzanne Vinson Georges Lopez, George L. Sartain, Jr., the heirs of Basil Georges, Poppi and Suzanne 1999 Oil Properties L.P., and the Poppi & Suzanne Oil Properties LLC, collectively Respondents or Appellees, filed a motion to dismiss alleging that Appellant lacked standing to intervene. The district court found that Appellant already had a presumed father, who was not Decedent, and that Appellant failed to make a showing that he had standing to intervene in Decedent's probate when Decedent had not been adjudicated his father. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss. The question presented is whether the district court correctly dismissed Appellant's petition to vacate and intervene. We answer the question in the affirmative.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Neoma Marie Felts married Clyde Felts in 1950. In 1958 she gave birth to Appellant. Clyde Felts is Appellant's presumed father. 10 O.S. 2011, § 7700-204 (A)(1). ^[1]

¶3 Basil Georges, Decedent, died in 1997. In March 1999, George L. Sartain, son of Decedent and Co-Personal Representative of his estate, filed a petition, and later an amended petition, for the probate of the will of Basil Georges in the Hughes County district court. ^[2] The next month, on April 12, 1999, the district court admitted the will to probate. By June 1999, one of the Co-Personal Representatives of the estate of Basil Georges filed a Final Report and Final Account along with a Petition for Order Allowing Final Report and for a Final Decree of Distribution and Discharge. On July 28, 1999, the district court entered its Order allowing final report and final account. On January 6, 2003, the district court rendered its final discharge.

¶4 It was not until fifteen years after the close of probate proceedings that Appellant alleges he became aware of his consanguineous connection to Decedent. Sometime in 2018 Poppi Eleni Georges Massey, Daughter of Decedent and Co-Personal Representative, took a commercially-available DNA test. The results allegedly show that Poppi and Appellant shared the same biological father. Poppi then contacted Appellant and told him about the test and results. On March 31, 2020, Appellant filed a petition to vacate the final probate orders and to intervene in the action. In the petition, Appellant argued that Appellees defrauded the court during Decedent's probate by falsely claiming that Decedent had no other heirs besides the ones listed in the will. Appellant further argued that, because Appellant was Decedent's son, he is considered a pretermitted heir and therefore entitled to an intestate share of the estate. In response, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction claiming that Appellant lacked standing because Appellant already had a presumed father, Clyde Felts. Naturally then, Appellees argued Appellant could not be a pretermitted heir if someone else was his father; and if Appellant was not an heir, then there was no fraud upon the court.

¶5 After hearing oral argument, the district court ruled in favor of Appellees, finding that Appellant lacked the requisite standing to bring his petition. Appellant appealed and we retained this case because of the present widespread availability of DNA testing to the general public. We now affirm because the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the post-probate dispute. 58 O.S. 2011, § 67; ^[3] see also In re Estate of Speake, 1987 OK 61, ¶¶ 12-16, 743 P.2d 648, 652-54.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶6 Motions to dismiss are generally viewed with disfavor and are reviewed de novo on appeal. Ladra v. New Dominion, LLC, 2015 OK 53, ¶ 8, 353 P.3d 529, 531. We must assume all factual allegations within the challenged pleadings are true and make any reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.; Miller v. Miller, 1998 OK 24, ¶ 15, 956 P.2d 887, 894. If, under the controlling law, there is no set of facts alleged or inferred that would support a finding for relief, then the motion must be granted and the action dismissed. Miller, 1998 OK 24, ¶ 15, 956 P.l2d, at 894. If supported by law and evidence, we will affirm the district court's judgment, "even if it was based on an incorrect theory and neither party tendered below an appropriate analysis of the applicable law." Signature Leasing, LLC v....