This residual property has been distributed among the beneficiaries, and there is no dispute about its distribution. We believe that is the appropriate valuation date for purposes of equalizing value among the four children under Paragraph 4. However, improvements, if any, made by Orlando while in possession of the SW, should be omitted in determining its value for equalization purposes. During oral argument neither attorney could answer whether Orlando has received more or less than a one-fourth share. However, Hazel's attorney estimated the property values, and those numbers suggest that Orlando may have received substantially less than a one-fourth share.
County courts derive their jurisdiction solely from the state constitution and statutory law.
However, neither party has suggested that the court would have authority to divest Orlando of his interest in the SW that Julia gifted to him in 1976, and we are unaware of any law that would give the court jurisdiction over that completed gift. Consequently, if the property valuations turn out that Orlando has already received more than a one-fourth share, equalization would have to be accomplished among the other three children, but not Orlando. That result would be equivalent to the county court's decision.