In re Estate of Fosler, 00-55.

• Decision Date: 30 November 2000
• Docket Number: No. 00-55.,00-55.
• Citation: 13 P.3d 686
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Constance Louise FOSLER, Deceased: Daniel D. Fosler and his heirs, Appellants (Respondents), v. William J. Collins, Personal Representative, Appellee (Petitioner), and Richard O. Puthoff, Appellee.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

13 P.3d 686

In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Constance Louise FOSLER, Deceased:

Daniel D. Fosler and his heirs, Appellants (Respondents), v. William J. Collins, Personal Representative, Appellee (Petitioner), and Richard O. Puthoff, Appellee.

No. 00-55.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 30, 2000.

Representing Appellants: Thomas N. Long of Thomas N. Long, P.C., Cheyenne, WY.

Representing Appellee Collins: No appearance.

Representing Appellee Puthoff: Gregory C. Dyekman and Kristen J. Schlattmann of Dray, Thomson & Dyekman, P.C., Cheyenne, WY.

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, GOLDEN, HILL and KITE, JJ.

KITE, Justice.

Constance Louise Fosler died intestate leaving a significant estate. Her only surviving relatives were first cousins and their descendants. The personal representative asked the district court to determine the method for distributing the assets to the collateral heirs and to issue an order for partial distribution. The district court construed the controlling statute, Wyo.Stat.Ann. § 2-4-101(c)(iii) (LEXIS 1999), to require distribution to the nearest living generation (the first cousins) as the root generation per capita and to their descendants per stirpes. It is from this decision that Daniel D. Fosler,¹ a first cousin, and his heirs appeal. Mr. Folser asserts the appropriate distribution is to the root generation comprised of the deceased grandfather, grandmother, uncles, and aunts per capita and then to their descendants per stirpes. We reverse and remand to the district court with the direction that the distribution be made to the root generation comprised of the deceased grandfather, grandmother, uncles, and aunts per capita and then to their descendants per stirpes.

ISSUES

Mr. Fosler presents the following issue for our review:

How is Wyo.Stat. § 2-4-101(c)(iii) to be applied to the distribution of assets of a decedent whose next of kin are the descendants of aunts and uncles?

Richard Puthoff² rephrases the issue as follows:

I. In its Order for Partial Distribution dated January 4, 2000, the District Court properly determined that, pursuant to Wyo.Stat. § 2-4-101(c)(iii), the root generation to which the initial distribution of the estate of Constance Louise Fosler should be made is the first generation in which there are living heirs.

FACTS

There are no facts in dispute, and no evidentiary proceedings were held. Ms. Fosler died intestate in Casper on December 23, 1998, leaving an estate in excess of $19,000,000. At the time of her death, no children, grandchildren, or other lineal descendants survived her. A personal representative was appointed on January 5, 1999, to administer the estate. Through the use of a genealogical search service, the personal representative identified one living first cousin—Mr. Fosler—and his descendants on the paternal side and six living first cousins and their descendants on the maternal side.³ In all, twenty-six collateral relatives were identified by the search. On October 18, 1999, the personal representative filed a petition for partial distribution requesting that the court determine the appropriate method of distribution to the collateral heirs. In the memorandum of law, the personal representative set out four possible methods of distribution referred to as 1(a), 1(b), 2(a) and 2(b). Method 1(a) used the statutorily named generation—grandfather, grandmother, uncles, and aunts—as the root⁴ generation. Because the aunts and uncles would take per stirpes from the grandparents, the grandparents are ignored. The aunts and uncles form the root generation and would take per capita,⁵ and their descendants would take per stirpes. Method 1(b) did not ignore the grandparents and used "grandfather, grandmother, uncles, aunts"⁶ as the root generation with each member taking per capita and their descendants taking per stirpes. Method 2(a) used the first generation with living members—the first cousins in this case—as the root generation who would take per capita, and their descendants would take per stirpes. Finally, Method 2(b) used a per capita distribution to all living heirs.⁷ Mr. Fosler filed a response on November 17, 1999, in which he urged the district court to adopt Method 1(b). A hearing was held on November 18, 1999.⁸ The district court issued a decision letter selecting Method 2(a) (the first cousins as the root generation taking per capita, and their descendants taking per stirpes), and Mr. Fosler filed a motion for reconsideration. A second hearing was held on December 15, 1999. On January 4, 2000, the district court issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration and a separate order for partial distribution which required distribution in keeping with Method 2(a). Mr. Fosler filed his notice of appeal from these orders.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issue to be addressed is whether the district court properly applied § 2-4-101(c)(iii) in selecting the first generation with living members as the root generation to take per capita, with their descendants to take per stirpes (Method 2(a)). "The question is one of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is a question of law; therefore, our standard of review is de novo." Anderson Highway Signs and Supply, Inc. v. Close, 6 P.3d 123, 124 (Wyo.2000). As we have noted:

"In interpreting statutes, we primarily determine the legislature's intent. If the language is sufficiently clear, we do not resort to rules of construction. We apply our general rule that we look to the ordinary and obvious meaning of a statute when the language is unambiguous."

Thunderbasin Land, Livestock & Investment Co. v. County of Laramie County, 5 P.3d 774, 779 (Wyo.2000) (quoting Kirbens v. Wyoming State Board of Medicine, 992 P.2d 1056, 1060 (Wyo.1999) (citations omitted)). We construe together all parts of the statutes in pari materia, and, in ascertaining the meaning of a given law, we consider and construe in harmony all statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose. Id.

When the language is not clear or is ambiguous, the court must look to the mischief the statute was intended to cure, the historical setting surrounding its enactment, the public policy of the state, the conclusions of law, and other prior and contemporaneous facts and circumstances, making use of the accepted rules of construction to ascertain a legislative intent that is reasonable and consistent.

State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Division v. Holtz, 674 P.2d 732, 736 (Wyo.1983). When the legislature adopts a statute, we presume it did so with full knowledge of the existing state of the law with reference to the statute's subject matter. Thunderbasin Land, Livestock & Investment Co.,5 P.3d at 780.

All statutes are presumed to be enacted by the legislature with full knowledge of the existing state of law with reference thereto and statutes are therefore to be construed in harmony with the existing law, and as a part of an overall and uniform system of jurisprudence, and their meaning and effect is to be determined in connection, not only with the common law and the constitution, but also with reference to the decisions of the courts.

Voss v. Ralston, 550 P.2d 481, 486 (Wyo. 1976).

DISCUSSION

In drafting intestate laws, legislatures have tried ... to provide for a scheme of distribution that would likely coincide with the desires of the average man who owns an average size estate composed of ordinary property to be distributed among a usual number and kind of relatives who are of equal need and friendly toward each other.

1 William J. Bowe & Douglas H. Parker, Page on the Law of Wills § 1.6 at 20 (1960); see also Lawrence H. Averill, Jr., Wyoming's Law of Decedents' Estates, Guardianship and Trusts: A Comparison with the Uniform Probate Code—Part I, VII Land & Water L.Rev. 169, 176 (1972). When a person dies without a will (or other estate planning instrument) that explains the manner in which the estate is to be divided among relatives and friends, the intestacy statutes provide a default plan. These provisions have often been criticized as being imperfect and unfair. Among the fifty states, the statutes are widely disparate, and many of the provisions were drafted over one hundred years ago.⁹ There have been significant changes in the organization of families and communities in this passage of time marked by the transition from primarily agrarian to predominately urban lifestyles. This has consequently led to the fragmentation of family ties and the concept of kinship. Although it was once true that extended families often lived their entire lives in the same small community or in relatively close proximity to one another, it is not the usual case today. In addition, the population has been aging and has become more mobile, thus changing family dynamics.¹⁰

Efforts have been made to reform probate codes and to address these societal changes and the perceived inequities of descent to extremely remote relations.¹¹ These have been primarily changes to ensure per capita distribution to relations of the same degree and restrictions on the inheritance rights of very distant relatives. In this vein, a majority of jurisdictions have selected the generation nearest in degree of relationship to the intestate of which a member is living as the generation from which the stocks will be selected.¹² The policy consideration behind this move is an effort to better effect what is considered to be the intention of a contemporary intestate to have his estate descend to known relatives and not be fractionalized among unknown shirt-tail relatives.

The construction of § 2-4-101(c)(iii) is a matter of first impression, which is some-what remarkable as Wyoming's intestacy provisions have remained essentially unchanged since their initial enactment in 1869.¹³ This is despite a significant revision of the Probate Code in 1980,¹⁴ which incorporated certain provisions of the Uniform Probate Code.¹⁵ The relevant portions of the...