Opinion ID: 2634669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Unaddressed issues

Text: ¶ 16 Flaniken raised and briefed multiple issues and errors in this appeal. Reversing on the jurisdictional issue, the Court of Civil Appeals noted it need not address the other issues and errors preserved by Flaniken. Pursuant to Hough v. Leonard, 1993 OK 112, 867 P.2d 438, and Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.180, 12 O.S.2001, ch. 15, app., we address the other issues preserved in Flaniken's brief in chief. ¶ 17 Flaniken contends that the probate court erred when it failed to provide an evidentiary hearing on the motion to vacate, citing Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., supra . The record on appeal demonstrates that Flaniken had an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing on temporary injunction on March 26, 2002. He questioned Hepler extensively about her relationship with Hughes, her knowledge of Hughes' collateral heirs, and the employment contract. At the conclusion of the hearing, the probate court permitted briefs addressing Flaniken's challenge to its jurisdiction. After submission of the briefs, the probate court vacated its order allowing final accounting. ¶ 18 Flaniken contends that the probate court should have conducted another hearing on the motion to vacate. Under the circumstances of this case, we disagree. The facts that support the vacation order were established at the hearing on the temporary injunction and are undisputed. Flaniken and Hepler entered into a written fee contract in which Flaniken agreed to represent Hepler as personal representative. Flaniken failed to disclose to the probate court either the existence or the terms of this written fee contract. The probate court entered the order allowing the final accounting without any knowledge of the written fee contract. ¶ 19 Flaniken's reliance on Patel is misplaced. Patel holds that a vacation proceeding under 12 O.S.2001, § 1031 is a post-judgment remedy governed by the statute and not subject to summary judgment process. Patel, 987 P.2d at 1193. While Patel explains that parties must be given an opportunity to present evidence in a vacation proceeding where material facts are controverted, it also teaches that there is no impediment to the consideration of undisputed facts and that an evidentiary hearing is not required in every vacation proceeding. Id. ¶ 20 Flaniken also contends that the probate court should not have considered the motion to vacate because Hepler failed to give notice to the heirs and creditors of the Hughes estate, relying on Allen v. Allen, 1948 OK 183, 201 Okla. 442, 209 P.2d 172. Allen teaches that those who are entitled to notice in a vacation proceeding are the parties whose rights may be prejudiced by a change in the judgment. Allen is inapposite because the collateral heirs received nothing under the order allowing final accounting and accordingly their rights could not be prejudiced by a change in the order. [6] ¶ 21 Finally, Flaniken argues that the vacation statutes do not provide a basis for relief for a party against his/her attorney. This argument is without merit in this case where the attorney fee for the personal representative lies within the sound discretion of the probate court. See Matter of the Estate of Bartlett, 680 P.2d at 379, wherein this Court said that the probate court may allow an attorney fee even over the objection of the personal representative.