In re Estate of Nelson
| Decision Date | 11 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 103,816.,Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4.,103,816. |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Luther Elmer NELSON, Deceased. Michael Elmer Nelson, Appellant, v. Deborah L. Billings, Personal Representative of the Estate of Luther Elmer Nelson, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma; Honorable Mark Campbell, District Judge.
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS
Vestor Songer, Hugo, Oklahoma, for Appellant.
David W. Kelley, Durant, Oklahoma, for Appellee.
¶ 1 Appellant, Michael Elmer Nelson, appeals the trial court's denial of his objections to, and its approval of, the final account and petition for distribution filed by Appellee, Deborah L. Billings, Personal Representative of the Estate of Luther Elmer Nelson, deceased. We reverse with directions.
¶ 2 In December 2004, Luther Elmer Nelson died, leaving three adult children: Appellee, Deborah L. Billings; Appellant, Michael Elmer Nelson; and Stephen Mark Nelson. In his Last Will and Testament, Mr. Nelson made a specific bequest of realty to each child; directed that any mineral interest he owned be divided equally among his children, share and share alike; and further directed that the residue of his estate be distributed equally to his three grandchildren, share and share alike. Mr. Nelson also designated Appellee as his personal representative and gave her the power to sell or mortgage any part of his real estate which she deemed "expedient and necessary" and "for the best interest of my estate."
¶ 3 In early 2005, Appellee filed a probate action, was appointed personal representative, and obtained an order determining the heirs and devisees of decedent as set forth in his Last Will and Testament. Thereafter, she determined that the estate only consisted of the realty specifically distributed to herself and her siblings, plus a small bank account. Although the estate was exempt from payment of estate and inheritance taxes, it became obvious that the costs and expenses of administration would exceed the amount of funds contained in the bank account. Accordingly, Appellee sought and received permission of the court (over Appellant's objection)to sell a pipeline easement over the realty specifically devised to Appellant. Appellant did not appeal this order. The sale was conducted, and, eventually, the costs and debts of administration were paid.
¶ 4 However, when Appellee filed her final account and petition for distribution, she requested that the sale funds remaining after payment of administration costs be considered residue of the estate and be distributed to Mr. Nelson's three grandchildren. Appellant objected, claiming that he was not only entitled to the balance of the sale proceeds, but that he was also entitled to ratable contribution from Appellee and his brother for administration expenses paid out of his specific devise.
¶ 5 The trial court overruled Appellant's objection and approved the final account and petition for distribution. The trial court also approved attorney fees sought by Appellee in connection with the objections filed by Appellant. Appellant appeals.
¶ 6 Probate proceedings are generally of equitable cognizance, which means that an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's order unless it is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence. In re Estate of Maheras, 1995 OK 40, ¶ 7, 897 P.2d 268, 271-72. However, an appellate court must independently review questions of law using a de novo standard. Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft, 1994 OK CIV APP 171, ¶ 5, 895 P.2d 731, 733 ().
¶ 7 As an initial matter, Appellee asserts that this appeal should be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 1.6(c)(1), 12 O.S.2001, ch. 15, app. 1, for Appellant's failure to give notice of the petition in error to all necessary parties in this case. That rule provides that an appeal may be dismissed for, among other things, failure to comply with Supreme Court rules. Here, Appellant gave notice of the petition in error to Appellee, but not to his brother, Stephen Mark Nelson, or the three grandchildren who are residuary heirs. Appellee argues that failure to provide proper notice to all necessary parties is a jurisdictional defect entitling her to a dismissal, see Tinker Investment and Mortgage Corp. v. City of Midwest City, 1994 OK 41, 873 P.2d 1029. This motion presents a matter of first impression.
¶ 8 Under Oklahoma's probate code, a personal representative must file a final account, give notice thereof to all "heirs, legatees and devisees," and if "any person interested" appears and files a written exception thereto, the court must proceed to hear same. 58 O.S.2001 §§ 541, 553, & 554. The probate court's order approving or disapproving a final account and petition for discharge is appealable by right. 58 O.S.2001 § 721. Probate appeals are taken as appeals in other district court cases. 58 O.S.2001 § 724. Supreme Court Rule 1.23(c) provides that a copy of the petition shall be filed in the trial court and mailed to "each party to the appeal." It further provides:
Parties served with process or entering a general appearance in the trial court constitute parties to the appeal.
Similarly, Supreme Court Rule 1.4(g), 12 O.S. Supp.2006, ch.15, app.1, provides that an appellant must give proper notice of his petition in error to those persons entitled to notice under 12 O.S.2001 § 2005(B). Under § 2005(A), service of every pleading must be made upon "each of the parties."
¶ 9 As indicated, under 58 O.S.2001 § 554, any "party interested in the estate" may file a written objection to a final account and petition for distribution. The term "interested party" includes the heirs, devisees, legatees, and, sometimes, creditors of the estate. Williams v. Mulvihill, 1993 OK 5, n. 25, 846 P.2d 1097, 1104. However, the Supreme Court has long recognized the distinction between an "interested party" entitled to notice and a right to object to final accounts, and a "party" to a probate proceeding.
¶ 10 In Anderson v. Miller, 1958 OK 67, 324 P.2d 856, the Supreme Court noted that the use of the term "a party to the .. . proceeding" as used in what is now 58 O.S. 2001 § 723 () refers to interested parties who actually appear and take an active part in the contested proceedings. The court held that the heirs' failure to take an active part in the proceeding placed them in the category of "persons interested . . . who were not parties to the ... proceeding." Id. at ¶ 7, 324 P.2d at 860.
¶ 11 Generally, a personal representative represents the interests of all the heirs. In Jameson v. Goodwin, 1914 OK 296, 141 P. 767, the appellant had filed suit against the administrator of an estate and had joined all the heirs of the decedent as defendants. However, on appeal from an adverse judgment the appellant failed to give notice of his petition in error to one of the defendants/heirs. Upon considering a motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court found that the heirs were not necessary parties in the trial court and, therefore, were not necessary parties entitled to notice on appeal.
¶ 12 In the present case, the other heirs, devisees, and legatees of the decedent did not take an active part or enter their appearance in the hearing on Appellant's objection to the final account and petition for distribution, were not opposing litigants in the trial court, and, therefore, were not necessary parties to this appeal. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is overruled.
¶ 13 On appeal, Appellant raises two propositions of error: first, the trial court erred by failing to order contribution from the other two specific devisees at the time of the final account; and, second, the trial court erred in granting Appellee an attorney fee for contesting Appellant's request for contribution.
¶ 14 Under 84 O.S.2001 § 3, estate debts, administration expenses, and family allowances must be paid from estate property in the following order:
5. All other property ratably. (Emphasis added).
Title 58 O.S.2001 § 471 authorizes the payment of debts and expenses from specific devises or legacies in proportion to the value of same:
The estate, real and personal, given by will to legatees or devisees, is liable for the debts, expenses of administration, and family expenses, in proportion to the value or amount of the several devises, or legacies,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Malone v. State
-
In the Matter of Assessment of Personal Property Taxes against Missouri Gas Energy, 2008 OK 94 (Okla. 10/21/2008)
...dissenting). 8. State of Okla.ex rel. Dep't of Human Services ex rel. Jones v. Baggett, 1999 OK 68, ¶4, 990 P.2d 235, 238; In re Estate of Nelson, 2007 OK CIV APP 81, ¶6, 168 P.3d 235, 238; Weeks v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 1994 OK CIV APP 171, ¶5, 895 P.2d 731,732 (approved for publication by ......