Hesler v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 06 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40928,40928 |
| Parties | Barbara HESLER, Administratrix of the Estate of George A. Snyder, Deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Margaret C. SNYDER, Elmer Snyder, Leathe Toot, Chester Snyder and Albert Snyder, sole and only heirs of George A. Snyder, Deceased, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The estate necessary to establish venue for the appointment of administrator does not necessarily have to consist of tangible property, but it is sufficient that there exists property rights of a substantial nature arising and enforcible in county where appointment is sought.
2. Cross-petition for personal injuries, property damage and damages filed by decedent during his lifetime against codefendants was such an asset as to authorize county court to appoint administratrix under provisions of Title 58, O.S.A.1961, § 5 where decedent was non-resident of the state at the time of his death and had no other property in Oklahoma.
Appeal from the District Court of Woods County; F. B. H. Spellman, Judge.
Appeal from order of District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, wherein the District Court vacated and set aside the appointment of one Barbara Hesler as the administratrix of the estate of George A. Snyder, Deceased. Reversed and remanded with directions.
John B. Doolin, of Harris, Newcombe, Redman & Doolin, Lawton, Morford & Benson, Alva, John William Wood, Liberal, Kan., for plaintiff in error.
W. J. Otjen, Jr., of Otjen, Carter, Huddleston & Otjen, Enid, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from the order of the District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, vacating and setting aside the appointment of Barbara Hesler, plaintiff in error here, as the administratrix of the estate of George A. Snyder, deceased. Defendants in error are the heirs of the decedent. We will refer to plaintiff in error as the appellant and the defendants in error as appellees.
On August 19, 1963, the County Court of Woods County, Oklahoma appointed Barbara Hesler as the administratrix of the estate of George A. Synder, deceased. This order was appealed to the District Court of Woods County, and after a hearing thereon, and the submission of briefs, the District Court issued its order vacating the appointment. Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled and this appeal followed.
The facts from which this controversy arises can be summarized as follows: On March 8, 1961, an automobile driven by George A. Snyder was involved in an accident in Woods County, Oklahoma. A passenger in the Snyder automobile, Luella Barrow, who was also a sister of George A. Snyder, brought an action in the District Court of Woods County against her brother George Snyder, Edward Golbek and John R. Golbek. Her petition alleged that the named defendants were jointly and concurrently liable for the injuries sustained by her in the accident.
Snyder filed an answer to this petition, denying liability and raising certain affirmative defenses. At the same time, he filed a cross-petition against his two co-defendants, seeking damages from them for personal injuries, property damage to his automobile and loss of use of his automobile. The Golbeks, by their answers, denied all liability.
On March 2, 1963, during the pendency of the above suit, George A. Snyder died, intestate, a resident of Seward County, Kansas. On July 16, 1963, Luella Barrow filed a petition in the County Court of Woods County seeking the appointment of one Barbara Hesler, a resident of Woods County, as administratrix of the estate of George A. Snyder, deceased. Her petition, usual in form, recited that Snyder died intestate, a resident of Seward County, Kansas, and that he (the deceased) left an estate in Woods County, Oklahoma consisting of a 'Cross-petition and cause #11357 of the District Court of Woods County, State of Oklahoma, entitled Barrow v. Golbek, et al.'
The petition also listed the names and addresses of the heirs at law of the deceased, all parties hereto, and also stated that Luella Barrow, the petitioner, was a sister of the deceased, but that she waived her right to appointment, and asked the court to appoint Barbara Hesler, a resident of Woods County, as administratrix.
After due notice, a hearing was held on this petition, and Barbara Hesler was appointed administratrix by the County Court, as aforesaid, an appeal to the District Court was taken, and the case found its way here.
From the briefs of the parties it appears that there is one main issue for us to consider. That issue, succinctly stated, is whether or not a cross-petition, filed in a tort action, during the lifetime of the decedent, is a property right sufficient to establish venue for the appointment of an administratrix in a county court.
The statute in question, Title 58, O.S.A.1961, § 5, provides as follows:
Sec. 5. Venue of probate acts
Wills must be proved, and letters testamentary or of administration granted:
1. In the county of which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death, in whatever place he may have died.
2. In the county in which the decedent may have died, leaving an estate therein, he not being a resident of the State.
3. In the county in which any part of the estate may be, the decedent having died out of the State, and not resident thereof at the time of his death.
4. In the county in which any part of the estate may be, the decedent not being a resident of the State, but dying within it, and not leaving estate in the county in which he died.
5. In all other cases, in the county where application for letters is first made.
Appellant, in her argument for reversal of the order of the District Court, contends that the cross-petition filed by the decedent during his lifetime is such an estate or property, under the above statute, to authorize the county court to appoint an administrator.
Citing two cases, In re Reardon's Estate, 203 Okl. 54, 219 P.2d 998, and Rock Island Improvement Co. v. Davis, 195 Okl. 513, 159 P.2d 728, appellant asserts that the rule laid down in them is controlling here. From the Reardon case, supra, the rule is stated as follows:
'The estate necessary to establish venue for appointment of administrator does not necessarily have to consist of tangible property, but it is sufficient that there exist property rights of a substantial nature, arising and enforcible in the jurisdiction.'
The rule, as announced in the Rock Island Improvement case, supra, is as follows:
'(T)he assets relied on as furnishing a basis for local administration should be of a tangible nature, but a mere claim or right of action arising or existing and enforcible within the jurisdiction is sufficient; and a bona...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nevada Paving, Inc. v. Callahan
...of clarity, however, the ruling of this case expressly supplants any inconsistency reflected in those opinions. See Hesler v. Snyder, 422 P.2d 432 (Okl.1967). It seems incongruous to say that if a decedent's estate consists of but one dollar thus requiring probate, his administrator can bri......