Powers v. Powers (In re Powers)
| Decision Date | 07 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 119,378 |
| Citation | 514 P.3d 1100 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Lloyd Yates POWERS a/k/a Yates Powers, Deceased: Becky Parker Powers, Appellant, v. Sydney Powers, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Brian E. Duke, DUKE LAW FIRM, PLLC, Tahlequah, Oklahoma, For Appellant
Barry P. Squires, Kyle Eastwood, BUZBEE, UPCHURCH, SQUIRES & EASTWOOD, Anadarko, Oklahoma, For Appellee
OPINION BY DEBORAH B. BARNES, PRESIDING JUDGE:
¶1 Becky Parker Powers (Spouse) appeals from an order of the district court in this probate proceeding. Based on our review, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Lloyd Yates Powers (Decedent) died in April 2012. At the time of his death, Decedent was a resident of Colorado. His daughter, Sydney Powers (Administrator), subsequently initiated a probate proceeding in Denver County, Colorado. Spouse, who was Decedent's wife at the time of his death, is a devisee under Decedent's will, as is Administrator and Decedent's son, Corey L. Powers. The will bequeaths "the rest, residue and remainder of [Decedent's] estate equally" to the three of them.1
¶3 Because Decedent had assets in Oklahoma, Administrator filed a Petition for Ancillary Probate of Last Will and Testament in the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma, in February 2015. Administrator also requested, consistent with a provision in the will, that she be appointed the personal representative of the estate. Soon thereafter, the District Court of Caddo County admitted the will to probate and appointed Administrator as personal representative.
¶4 Spouse filed a motion to vacate these and other determinations of the District Court of Caddo County. The district court denied this motion, and Spouse appealed. In an opinion for which mandate issued in March 2017, the determinations of the district court were affirmed by a separate division of this court.2
¶5 In September 2020, Administrator filed a Final Account asserting that "all mineral rights have been sold" and "[t]hat there now remains in this ancillary estate the net proceeds from the mineral sale[.]" Administrator quoted the following from the will: "My Personal Representative ... shall pay my just debts and the expenses of my last illness and funeral as soon after my death as may be conveniently done ...." Administrator asserted in the Final Account that "there remain unpaid obligations in the domiciliary estate, in the Denver Probate Court," and that "all bills of the decedent should be paid before assets are distributed to the devisees under the admitted will of the decedent." Administrator "request[ed] leave of the Court to transfer the monetary assets in this ancillary estate to the domiciliary estate in Colorado."
¶6 In October 2020, Spouse filed an Objection to Final Account. Spouse asserted that "no authority appears in the statutes for probate assets in this state to be subject to or subsidiary to the jurisdiction of another state," and also asserted that only "vague reference" had been made regarding the debts to be paid. In addition, Spouse asserted that probate assets in Oklahoma "remain unaccounted for" — in particular, possible additional "oil and gas properties" of Decedent in Oklahoma. Finally, Spouse asserted she is entitled to a "widow's allowance" "for her maintenance during this probate proceeding now that there are funds available for it."
¶7 In response, Administrator asserted that 58 O.S. 2011 § 633 "expressly authorizes [the court] to permit the delivery of assets of this state to the duly appointed executor of the estate of the decedent in his state of residence." She further stated that "Oklahoma law favors obedience to the will of the decedent and payment of creditors before distribution to devisees," and that "[t]he existence of creditors in the state of residence of the decedent and the validity of said claims is left to the sole discretion of the court in the state of residence of the decedent." Regarding the possibility of unaccounted-for assets of Decedent existing in Oklahoma, Administrator asserted she "is unaware of any further assets belonging to this estate"; that she "retained counsel for the purpose of conducting title research in numerous counties of this State and the research concluded that the assets accounted for herein were the only known assets remaining in this estate"; and that "no evidence has been provided by [Spouse] to support her claim of an incomplete accounting of assets." Administrator stated that the "[r]esearch did reveal mineral interests owned by the Decedent during his lifetime that were sold and conveyed to third parties before his death," but, "[a]s these interests were no longer owned by the Decedent at his death, they were not included in the inventory of assets." Finally, Administrator asserted Spouse is not entitled to an allowance as the surviving spouse "for the reason that [her] claim is for the sole purpose of avoiding creditors and is not for the purpose of the maintenance of the surviving spouse during the pendency of the administration." Administrator asserted that had Spouse needed support, "she was permitted by statute to seek same regardless of the solvency or insolvency of the estate," and Spouse's request therefore "comes before this Court five (5) years too late." Administrator also asserted that Spouse "has filed a claim for widow's allowance in the domiciliary estate which remains pending," and that "the assets being delivered to the domiciliary estate will be available for said allowance if approved by that court."
¶8 Following a hearing, the district court entered its Order Allowing Final Account and Distribution of the Estate. The order states that, "pursuant to the Personal Representative's Power to Sale Under Will, all mineral rights have been sold" and "[t]hat there now remains in this ancillary estate the net proceeds from the mineral sale[.]" The order states that "the net monetary assets in the amount of $42,088.49 shall be distributed to the attorney of record for the personal representative, [Administrator,] in the Denver Probate Court ... with specific direction for the funds to be placed in the Attorney's Trust Account and for the funds to remain there until a specific order is issued by the Denver Probate Court[.]" The order also provides that "any unlisted or later discovered assets shall be distributed" equally to the devisees. Finally, the order further states that Spouse's "Application for a Widow's Allowance ... is denied."
¶9 From this order, Spouse appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶10 Probate proceedings are of equitable cognizance. In re Estate of Fulks , 2020 OK 94, ¶ 9, 477 P.3d 1143 ; In re Estate of Maheras , 1995 OK 40, ¶ 7, 897 P.2d 268. Therefore, "[w]e presume that the trial court's decision is legally correct and we will not disturb the trial court's decision unless it is ‘found to be clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence or to some governing principle of law.’ " Fulks , ¶ 9 (footnote omitted). Issues of law, including issues of statutory construction, are reviewed under a de novo standard of review. Id. (footnote omitted).
ANALYSIS
¶11 Spouse asserts on appeal that the trial court erred (1) in authorizing the transfer of assets from Oklahoma to the probate estate of Decedent in Colorado, (2) in denying Spouse's request to use asset sale proceeds to search for additional assets of Decedent in Oklahoma, and (3) in denying Spouse's request for an allowance as the surviving spouse of Decedent.
¶12 In arguing that the trial court erred in authorizing the transfer of assets from Oklahoma to the probate estate of Decedent in Colorado, Spouse takes issue with Administrator describing as "ancillary" the probate proceeding in Oklahoma, and as "domiciliary" the probate proceeding in Colorado. Spouse asserts that these terms "do not appear in Oklahoma probate statutes." However, Spouse is incorrect in this regard.3 Moreover, these terms are employed in multiple Oklahoma decisions interpreting and applying Oklahoma probate statutes. In fact, in the only case cited by Spouse in this portion of her appellate brief — In re Estate of Miller , 1988 OK CIV APP 19, 768 P.2d 373 — the Court uses the terms in question throughout its discussion. See, e.g., id. , ¶ 7 ().4
¶13 Nevertheless, of greater importance is the reason Spouse takes issue with the use of these terms. In her view, they misleadingly imply that the present proceeding in Oklahoma is "subject to or subsidiary to the jurisdiction of another state,"5 and we agree with Spouse to the extent that, with regard to the assets in Oklahoma, the district court is not "subject to or subsidiary to the jurisdiction" of the Colorado court. As the Court in Estate of Miller explained, "[i]t is well settled in Oklahoma that a foreign executor may not hold, or convey, title to real property located in Oklahoma," and "[p]ublic policy requires that Oklahoma law determine the transfer of title to real estate." 1988 OK CIV APP 19, ¶ 10, 768 P.2d 373 (citations omitted). Citing Smith v. Reneau , 1941 OK 99, 188 Okla. 629, 112 P.2d 160, the Court in Estate of Miller stated that under circumstances involving a decedent of a foreign state who has real property located in Oklahoma, "an ancillary proceeding is necessary to vest title to real property located within this state." Estate of Miller , ¶ 10.
¶14 However, there is no indication that the Oklahoma district court, in the proceeding below, failed to exercise independent jurisdictional power over Decedent's real property in Oklahoma and apply Oklahoma law with regard to that property. Indeed, as Spouse acknowledges on appeal, in the proceedings below Administrator "cited [to] 58 O.S. § 633 for authority to allow delivery of estate assets to the executor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial