Title: In the Matter of the Estate of Fulks
Citation: 2020 OK 94
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 2020

In the Matter of the Estate of Fulks Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary After decedent Charles Fulks died, his wife, petitioner-appellee Dorothy Fulks, filed the probate of his estate in the District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma. An heir at law-appellant, the decedent's daughter, Tammy McPherson, objected to the probate in Nowata County. She argued that: (1) the decedent died in Osage County, and all of the decedent's real and personal property was located in Osage County; (2) pursuant to 58 O.S. 2011 section 5, the proper venue for the probate was solely in Osage County, Oklahoma; and (3) the case should have been transferred pursuant to the doctrine of intrastate forum non conveniens. The trial court determined that Nowata County was also a proper venue, and it denied the daughter's request to transfer the cause to Osage County. The daughter appealed, and after review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held venue was proper in Osage County. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FULKS 2020 OK 94 Decided: 11/24/2020 Case Number: 118314 1 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. In the Matter of the Estate of CHARLES FULKS, deceased. DOROTHY FULKS, Petitioner/Appellee, v. TAMMY MCPHERSON, Heir at Law/Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE NOWATA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT Honorable Carl G. Gibson, Trial Judge ¶0 After the decedent, Charles Fulks died, his wife, the petitioner/appellee, Dorothy Fulks, filed the probate of his estate in the District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma. An heir at law/appellant, the decedent's daughter, Tammy McPherson, objected to the probate in Nowata County. She argued that: 1) the decedent died in Osage County, and all of the decedent's real and personal property was located in Osage County; 2) pursuant to 58 O.S. 2011 §5, the proper venue for the probate was solely in Osage County, Oklahoma; and 3) the cause should be transferred pursuant to the doctrine of intrastate forum non conveniens. The trial court determined that Nowata County was also a proper venue, and it denied the daughter's request to transfer the cause to Osage County. The daughter appealed, and we retained the cause to address where the probate should be brought. We hold that venue is proper in Osage County. CAUSE RETAINED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. James C. Milton, Aaron C. Tifft. Tulsa, Oklahoma, Bransford Shoemake, Pawhuska, Oklahoma, Amanda S. Proctor, Jenks, Oklahoma, for Appellant. Todd A. Cone, Nowata, Oklahoma, for Appellee. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The questions presented are whether: 1) 58 O.S. 2011 §5,2 which delineates probate venue, requires the probate in this cause to be brought in Osage County, where the decedent died and all of his property was located; 2) Nowata County, where his widow first filed and received letters of administration, is an alternative venue for the probate; or 3) the cause should be transferred because of intrastate forum non conveniens. Venue is proper in Osage County. FACTS ¶2 The decedent, Charles Fulks (Fulks/decedent), died on February 11, 2013. At the time of his death, all of his real and personal property was alleged to have been located in Osage County, Oklahoma. On June 4, 2019, the petitioner, Dorothy Fulks (petitioner/widow), filed a Petition for Letters of Administration in the District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma, where she resided after her husband's death. In the petition, the widow listed herself as the surviving spouse of Fulks, and three children: daughters, Tobi Bricker, and Kim Bricker, and son, Charles Cody Fulks. She also stated that no will had been found, and that the decedent died intestate. She did not disclose the residency of her husband in her petition, nor did she subsequently disclose or argue that her husband had ever resided in Nowata County, Oklahoma. ¶3 The widow asked to be appointed Personal Representative of the decedent's estate. The trial court set the matter for hearing on July 2, 2019. On July 1, 2019, the appellant, Tammy McPherson (McPherson/daughter), filed a special appearance and reservation of time to answer in Nowata County. She identified herself as another daughter of the Fulks who was an "heir at law" and a lawful devisee and legatee named under the decedent's last Will and Testament. McPherson also requested a continuance of the July 2, 2019, hearing. On July 2, 2019, McPherson filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that: 1) the decedent did not die intestate; 2) she is a named heir in decedent's will; 3) all of the decedent's real and personal property was located in Osage, County, Oklahoma; and 4) the proper venue for the probate lies in Osage County, and even if it did not, the cause should be transferred to Osage County because intrastate forum non conveniens.3 ¶4 McPherson attached a copy of decedent's will dated September 26, 2011. The will lists the widow as Personal Representative, with McPherson as a the successor Personal Representative, should the widow be unable or refuse to serve. Also on July 2, 2019, the widow filed an Application for Appointment of Special Administrator. She requested that she be appointed Special Administrator immediately so that she could assess, protect, and preserve all of decedent's assets. According to a court minute, and a court order both filed July 2, 2019, the trial court, with no one appearing to object, appointed the widow as Personal Administrator. The trial court also determined that Nowata County was a proper venue, and it issued Letters of Special Administration the same day. ¶5 On July 15, 2019, the widow filed a "Motion for an Order to Produce Last Will and Testament." She alleged that McPherson had removed her from the family home immediately after the decedent's death without most of her personal belongings, and without the property of her spouse of fifty-one years. She requested that the trial Court order McPherson to deliver the decedent's will. The next day, the widow filed a response to McPherson's motion to dismiss, arguing that: she had the option of choosing where to file the probate for her convenience; venue was proper in Nowata County; and McPherson was the only one complaining. ¶6 On July 29, 2019, the widow filed a "Request for Citation to Appear" asking the trial court to order McPherson to appear because she had concealed, embezzled, smuggled, conveyed, and disposed of decedent's property. She also suggested that there was a question of whether McPherson was the biological child of the decedent. The trial court set a hearing for all pending matters on August 13, 2019, but the cause was reset for August 15, 2019. On August 15, 2019, it overruled McPherson's motion to dismiss, and sustained the petition and appointments of the widow. The court minute reflects that a copy of the will was submitted and filed with no objection. ¶7 On August 16, 2019, the widow filed an "Amended Petition for Admission of the Last Will and Testament to Probate and Letters Testamentary." naming all four children as heirs at law. The trial court set the matter for hearing on August 28, 2019, which was passed by agreement until September 10, 2019. On September 10, 2019, the trial court issued an order again overruling McPherson's motion to dismiss and appointing the widow as Personal representative. It appears, based on the arguments and authority presented to the trial court, that its ruling was based on the recent opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in In re Estate of Walker, 2018 OK CIV APP 63, 439 P.3d 424 which was released for publication by the Court of Civil Appeals, without a petition for certiorari being filed in this Court. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the Legislature had amended the statute so that probate could be filed in any county. However, the trial court, applying an unusual rationale, also determined that the testator died intestate, noting: The Court, after hearing evidence, and announcement and stipulation of counsel, finds the parties have stipulated that the paper or instrument propounded herein for probate as the Last Will and Testament of said deceased, which Will is dated September 26, 2011, was duly executed by Charles Fulks, and that at the time of executing the same, the Testator was full age, of sound mind and memory, and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, and that the Will was executed in all particulars as required by law. However, although the authenticity, capacity, and testamentary provisions have been proved and agreed by the parties, at this time, there is no testimony that the will was in existence at the time [of] testator's death. Therefore, the estate of Charles Fulks, as of this time, will be administered as an intestate estate. The daughter appealed on October 10, 2019, and we retained the appeal on May 12, 2020, to address whether renumbering of 58 O.S. 2011 §54 changed the priority of proper probate venue. The cause was assigned to this chamber on May 21, 2020. I. UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CAUSE, VENUE IS PROPER IN OSAGE COUNTY. ¶8 The widow argues that: she chose where to file her husband's probate for her convenience and cost; and that because the application for letters occurred first in Nowata County, the cause should remain there. She primarily relies on both the probate venue statute, 58 O.S. 2011 §5,5 coupled the recent rationale of the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, In re Estate of Walker, 2018 OK CIV APP 63, 439 P.3d 424, as persuasive authority.6 The daughter argues that the litany of venue options provided by the statute is in a prioritized order, and that he resided and died in Osage County, and all of the decedent's real and personal property is located in Osage County, the cause must be transferred to Osage County. ¶9 Probate proceedings are of equitable cognizance.7 We 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."8 This matter also involves questions of statutory interpretation and harmonization. We are required to review questions of law, such as the construction of statutes, under a de novo standard of review.9 A. TITLE 58 O.S. 2011 §5 HAS REMAINED RELATIVELY UNCHANGED SINCE ITS ENACTMENT. A PUBLISHER'S MODIFICATIONS CANNOT CHANGE A STATUTE'S SUBSTANTIVE MEANING. ¶10 Title 58 O.S. §5 was originally enacted in 1910 as, Ch. 64, Art.1 §6193. It was taken from South Dakota and California statutory provisions,10 and it provided as follows: Venue of Probate Acts. Wills must be proved and letters testamentary or of administration granted:First. In the county of which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death, in whatever place he may have died.Second. In the county of which the decedent may have died, leaving an estate therein, he not being a resident of the State.Third. In the county of which part of the estate may be, the decedent having died out of State, and not a resident thereof at the time of death.Fourth. In the county in which any part of the estate may be, the decedent not being a resident or the State, but dying within it, and not leaving estate in the county in which he died.Fifth. In all other cases, in the county in which letters of administration is first made. (Emphasis in original). ¶11 By 1941, the statute had relocated to 58 O.S. 1941 §5.11 Without any Legislative amendment, the publishing company changed the numbers in the statute from written numbers, to numerical symbols.12 Generally, a publisher's correction becomes part of the statute if the publisher did not change the substantive meaning of the statute as it was originally intended by the Legislature.13 Consequently, the changes from the word "First" to the numeral "1" became part of the statute. The Legislature did not make any amendments to the statute until 1982, nor have they made any since 1982. ¶12 The 1982 amendments were small changes intended to clarify language relating to residency requirements.14 Title 58 O.S. Supp. 1982 §5, reads the same as the current version.15 Consequently, the publisher's changes from words such as "First" to "1" has no affect on the statutes' substantive meaning. Our precedents vary on construction of §5 based on the variation in facts and circumstances. The present question has never been addressed by this Court based on the change from written to numerical designations. We would not do so now but for the recent opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in In re Estate of Walker, 2018 OK CIV APP 63, 439 P.3d 424 in which the Court of Civil Appeals held that the Legislature had amended the statute so that probate could be filed in any county. We do not agree with this premise, it is overly broad and statutorily inconsistent. II. THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE DECEDENT RESIDES WHEN THE DEATH OCCURS IS THE PROPER COUNTY FOR VENUE OF THE PROBATE. ¶13 The probate of the decedent's estate falls into two categories: either the decedent was a resident of the State of Oklahoma at the time of death,16 or the decedent was not a resident of the State of Oklahoma at the time of death. Of the litany of five items in 58 O.S. 2011 §5, subsections 1 concerns when the decedent is a resident of Oklahoma at the time of death; 2-4 all concern when the decedent was not a resident of Oklahoma at the time of death; and 5 is a catch-all provision for "all other cases."17 ¶14 Subsection 1 provides that probate must be in the county of which the decedent was a resident at the time of his death, regardless where he or she died. Subsection 2 applies when a decedent dies in an Oklahoma County, and has left an estate in that county, but the decedent was not a resident of Oklahoma at the time of death. Subsection 3 concerns a decedent who has an estate in an Oklahoma County but dies out of state and was not a resident of Oklahoma at the time of death. Subsection 4 applies when a decedent leaves an estate in an Oklahoma County, was not a resident of Oklahoma at the time of death, but died in Oklahoma in another county than where the estate was located.18 Subsection 5 applies "in all other cases" the county where letters of administration is first made. ¶15 Nevertheless, §5 cannot be read in isolation because there are three provisions relating to venue in the Probate Code.19 Section 6 concerns the circumstances in which a decedent is not a resident of Oklahoma at the time of death. It provides that: When the estate of the decedent is in more than one county, he having died out of the state, and not having been a resident thereof at the time of his death, or being such nonresident and dying within the state, and not leaving estate in the county where he died, the district court of that county in which application is first made for letters testamentary or of administration, has exclusive jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate. Title 58 O.S. 2011 §7 provides that: The district court of the county in which application is first made for letters testamentary or of administration in any of the cases above mentioned, shall have jurisdiction coextensive with the State in the settlement of the estate of the decedent and the sale and distribution of his real estate and excludes the jurisdiction of the district court of every other county. This Court, in State ex rel. Monahawee v. Hazelwood, 1921 OK 103, 196 P. 937 recognized the efficacy of §7's applicability to probate venue when it is unclear where, exactly, the decedent resided within Oklahoma at the time of death. Monahawee concerned a Native American's probate conflict between two courts -- Osage County and Okmulgee County. Osage County was the first Court to issue letters of administration. The Court held that: ¶4 From the foregoing provisions it seems quite clear that when the county court of Okmulgee county took jurisdiction of the administration proceedings in the instant case, such jurisdiction was co-extensive with the state and excluded the jurisdiction of the county court of every other county. It is not only the rule made so by statute, but, on the ground of public policy, was the rule at common law. Dobler v. Strobel, 9 N.D. 104, 81 Am. St. Rep. 530-5, 81 N.W. 37. When the county court of Okmulgee county took jurisdiction of the estate of Lete Kolvin, deceased, and appointed an administrator therein, such taking of jurisdiction and such appointment of administrator were the finding of every jurisdictional fact necessary to such an appointment. ¶16 In subsequent cases, the Court adhered to the principle that venue of probate, as set by statute, generally lies foremost in the county where the decedent resided at the time of death.20 These cases held that if the decedent was a resident of Oklahoma when the death occurred and the decedent died within the State of Oklahoma, location of the decedent's assets was of no consequence. Only the residence of the decedent at the time of death was the determinative factor.21 ¶17 However, a problem arises when residency is unclear, and two counties are in conflict over a decedent's residency, and one of the counties issues letters of administration first. In some cases the Court has noted that, the venue of that county court is presumed as a proper and cannot be collaterally attacked by appeal.22 For example, in Whitney v. Cook, 1956 OK 302, ¶¶4-6, 303 P.2d 1116 , another case involving a conflict of jurisdiction and venue over a probate case, the Court explained, relying on previous cases, that: The rule is well-settled that when there is presented an intolerable conflict between two courts, each attempting to exercise jurisdiction in the same cause and between the same parties, that this court must determine where the jurisdiction or venue lies and issue its writ accordingly. The rule is also recognized that when either of two or more courts of equal jurisdiction might originally have acted in the matter, and proper resort has been had to one such court, and that court has assumed full jurisdiction and has acted and is acting in the matter, that other courts of equal jurisdiction should be barred from action in the same matter. . .The granting of letters of administration by a county court imports jurisdiction in the court so to do, and it will be inferred from the fact that such letters were granted that a resident decedent whose estate is being administered died a resident of the county in which letters of administration are first granted. ¶18 However, we have also had previous cases wherein exceptions were recognized where the will was admitted to probate, but the evidence appeared on the face of the pleadings to support proper venue in only one county. In James v. Sanders, 1923 OK 690, ¶2, 218 P. 877, the Court addressed a conflict in probate jurisdiction in Love County and Carter County. The decedent lived at a sanitarium in Carter County, but before her death, moved to Love County, but then returned to Carter County where she died. The Court held that: We have carefully considered the evidence in the record, and while it may be conceded that there is evidence tending to show that Cora James left the sanitarium at Talihina with the intention of making her home with Dora Sanders in Love county, yet we are unable to wholly ignore the undisputed testimony that shows that she was anxious, after having resided for 12 days on the farm of the petitioner in Love county, to return to the academy, where she had been reared, educated, and given a home from early childhood until she had reached majority and until she was sent to the sanitarium as a patient. It is our conclusion that this testimony conclusively establishes the fact that it was her intention in returning to this academy to continue to live there the remainder of her life and to constitute the same as her permanent residence and home. In view of this conclusion it necessarily follows that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. It may well be observed that the judgment of the district court would not be sustained for another reason--that the will admitted to probate had been legally revoked. But, in view of the conclusion reached as to the jurisdiction of the county court of Love county, it is unnecessary for any further discussion of this proposition. The judgment of the district court of Love county is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions for said court to enter an order remanding cause to county court, with directions to dismiss the petition for the probation of the will in Love county. ¶19 In Anderson v. Jackson, 1935 OK 170, ¶9, 41 P. 22d 815 and Breedlove v. Tulsa County, 1930 OK 1101, ¶11, 58 P.2d 305 , the Court held that the clear weight of the evidence established only one county as proper venue. In Anderson, all of the evidence established that the decedent died in McCurtain County and not in Choctaw County where the probate was filed. Similarly in Breedlove, first Tulsa County, and then Sequoyah County asserted jurisdiction in the same probate estate. While some evidence was presented that the decedent was a resident of Sequoyah County at the time of death, the weight of the evidence showed that he actually resided in Tulsa County at the time of death, thus Tulsa County was the proper venue. ¶20 The question of the necessity for the appointment of an administrator is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the district courts.23 Nevertheless we must reconcile our previous cases with 58 O.S. 2011 §5, §6, and §7. We must acknowledge that the statutes collectively require venue first and foremost in the county where the decedent resided at the time of death. The subsections of §5, along with §6 and §7, clarify merely what happens on those occasions when the decedent either dies out of state, but resided and owned property in Oklahoma at the time of death; or leaves an estate in an Oklahoma county, but dies in another Oklahoma county or out of State. ¶21 If the conflicting evidence is unclear as to the decedent's actual residency, then pursuant to 58 O.S. 2011 §7, the jurisdiction of district courts to probate are co-extensive, and once a district court which appears to be a proper venue asserts jurisdiction, and then issues letters of administration, that court has jurisdiction exclusive of all others.24 To construe these statutes otherwise would make the language of all three statutes superfluous. We never presume the Legislature has done a vain and useless thing.25 ¶22 Here, the evidence points only to Osage County as both the residence of the decedent and the county in which he died. Consequently, this cause should have been brought in Osage County. Because no conflict of the decedent's residency even appears, those cases in which a collateral attack on the jurisdiction or venue of the probate court is prohibited are inapplicable. The matter may not be collaterally attacked on appeal where it genuinely appears on the face of the record that two different counties might have been the residence of the decedent at the time of death and one county determines it has jurisdiction and issues letters of administration first.26 This does not mean that probate may be brought anywhere one wishes. ¶23 In In re Estate of Walker, 2018 OK CIV APP 63, 439 P.3d 424, the Court of Civil Appeals addressed the venue of probates. Like this cause, Walker, supra, also involved the request to transfer a probate case based upon a change of venue after administration of letters were first made. The Walker Court noted the original statutory enactment of 1910, but it incorrectly assumed that the Legislature subsequently amended the statute to removing priority language of "First, Second," etc. Thus, Walker's holding that a priority no longer exists in the statute because of a legislative amendment, and that a probate action may be filed in any of the applicable situations listed in §5, was based on an incorrect assumption. As a result, the rule suddenly became that probate venue was proper anywhere in the State of Oklahoma. To the extent that Walker is inconsistent with this opinion it is hereby overruled. Because we hold that Osage is the only proper county in which this probate may proceed, we need not address the intrastate forum non conveniens arguments made by the daughter.27 CONCLUSION ¶24 Pursuant to §5, venue is prioritized and lies first and foremost in the county where the decedent resided at the time of death.28 It is only when it appears on the face of the pleadings that evidence is conflicting concerning what county the decedent resided in at the time of death or that the decedent died out of state that, pursuant to 58 O.S. 2011 §§5-7, the jurisdiction of county courts for probate are co-extensive. In the appearance of such a conflict, once a county court asserts jurisdiction, and issues letters of administration, that court has jurisdiction exclusive of all others.29 Here, only one county, Osage County, is the proper venue. The trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded Nowata County with directions for the trial court to transfer the cause to Osage County, and to dismiss the Nowata County proceedings.30 CAUSE RETAINED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. GURICH, C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COMBS, JJ., concur. DARBY, V.C.J., KANE, ROWE, J.J., (by separate writing) Concur in part; Dissent in part. COLBERT, J., not participating. FOOT