Benjamin v. Butler
194 P.3d 1269, 2008 Okla. LEXIS 85, 2008 OK 83 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Oklahoma's pretermitted heir statute, which protects a child unintentionally omitted from a testator's will, does not apply to assets held in a revocable inter vivos trust.
Facts:
- Walter Kinsley Jackson and his wife established a revocable inter vivos trust, naming Robena Butler and Harris Butler as co-trustees.
- Jackson's wife predeceased him, leaving him as the sole settlor of the trust.
- Jackson died, having not mentioned or provided for Johnny C. Benjamin in his trust.
- Johnny C. Benjamin alleged that he was Jackson's adult son and sole surviving heir.
- Benjamin's birth certificate identified another man, Kenneth P. Benjamin, as his father.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnny C. Benjamin filed a petition in probate court seeking to be appointed personal representative of the estate of Walter Kinsley Jackson.
- The trial court issued an order finding Jackson died intestate, appointing Benjamin as administrator, and determining him to be Jackson's sole heir at law.
- Benjamin then filed an intra-probate proceeding against Robena and Harris Butler, the co-trustees of Jackson's trust, seeking control of the trust assets under the pretermitted heir statute.
- The Butlers filed a motion for summary judgment, challenging Benjamin's evidence of heirship.
- Benjamin filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing the pretermitted heir statute applied to the trust.
- The trial court denied Benjamin's motion, ruling that the pretermitted heir statute does not apply to revocable inter vivos trusts, and entered a final decree.
- Benjamin (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, siding with the Butlers (appellees).
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted Benjamin's petition for writ of certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Oklahoma's pretermitted heir statute, 84 O.S.2001, § 132, apply to assets held in a revocable inter vivos trust, allowing a child omitted from the trust to claim a share of its assets?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
No. Oklahoma's pretermitted heir statute unambiguously applies only to wills and does not extend to assets held in a revocable inter vivos trust. The court's reasoning is based on a plain language reading of the statute, 84 O.S.2001, § 132, which explicitly refers to a 'testator' and 'will.' The court found this language to be clear and unambiguous, thus requiring no further statutory interpretation. It declined to extend the precedent set in Thomas v. Bank of Oklahoma, which protected a surviving spouse from being disinherited via a trust, because spousal protections derive from 'forced heir' statutes that limit a person's power to disinherit a spouse. In contrast, the pretermitted heir statute for children does not prevent intentional disinheritance but merely protects against unintentional omissions from a will. Therefore, a parent's power to disinherit a child is much broader than their power to disinherit a spouse, and the protections afforded to children under the pretermitted heir statute are strictly confined to the context of a will.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal distinction between probate and non-probate assets in Oklahoma, specifically clarifying that statutory protections for pretermitted heirs do not cross over from wills to will substitutes like revocable trusts. The ruling provides certainty for estate planners and settlors that assets placed in a revocable trust are governed solely by the terms of the trust instrument, free from claims under the pretermitted heir statute. It also highlights the different levels of protection afforded to spouses versus children, reinforcing that a parent has the power to intentionally disinherit a child through a non-probate instrument without facing the same statutory limitations that apply to disinheriting a spouse.
