Opinion ID: 2516475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: funding source(s) for payment of debts and costs of administration.

Text: ¶ 18 In essence, the SPR is of the view decedent intended her home to go to the Church free of any of decedent's debts/estate expenses and, apparently, that she intended her debts/estate expenses be paid from the joint tenancy funds. Under this summary judgment record two main problems exist with the SPR's contentions. First, because under the summary judgment record the bank accounts were held in joint tenancy and, thus, nephew became sole owner of all funds in the accounts immediately upon decedent's death, the bank account funds were not responsible for payment of decedent's debts or estate administration costs. In other words, the joint tenancy funds, under this record, simply cannot be considered a part of decedent's estate or liable for her debts/estate expenses. [8] ¶ 19 Second, even if it be assumed decedent had an intent to pass her home via her will free of any of her debts/estate expenses, because the record contains evidentiary materials that show an apparent insufficiency of other estate property or funds to pay the debts/expenses claimed subject to reimbursement by nephew, such an intent may be impossible to fully honor under our law. This is shown by 58 O.S.1991, § 471, which provides: The estate, real and personal, given by will to legatees or devisees, is liable for the debts, expenses of administration, and family expenses, in proportion to the value or amount of the several devises, or legacies, but specific devises or legacies are exempt from such liability if it appears to the court necessary to carry into effect the intention of the testator, and there is other sufficient estate. (emphasis added) As shown by § 471, even though specific devises are exempt from the payment of debts/estate expenses when necessary to effectuate the intention of a testator, the exemption applies only if there is other sufficient estate to pay valid debts, expenses, etc. Where all primary funds and assets preceding in order of resort for payment of debts have been exhausted, and only specific devises and legacies remain in the estate, the same shall abate and contribute ratably, inter se, to satisfy remaining liabilities of the estate. Tapp v. Mitchell, 1960 OK 135, 352 P.2d 900, 901 First Syllabus. ¶ 20 The order by which a decedent's property is to be resorted to for the payment of debts/estate expenses referred to in Tapp is primarily controlled by 84 O.S.1991, § 3. See generally In re Fletcher's Estate, 1957 OK 7, 308 P.2d 304. Section 3 provides: The property of a testator, except as otherwise especially provided in this code and in the chapter on civil procedure must be resorted to for the payment of debts in the following order: 1. The property which is expressly appropriated by the will for the payment of the debts. 2. Property not disposed of by the will. 3. Property which is devised or bequeathed to a residuary legatee. 4. Property which is not specifically devised or bequeathed, and, 5. All other property ratably. Before any debts are paid, the expenses of the administration and the allowance to the family must be paid or provided for. (emphasis added) Under § 3, the order of priority here would be the residuary estate, and if exhausted, then decedent's residence, because that is the only other asset shown by the record to be part of her estate. ¶ 21 We now examine whether the COCA correctly affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the SPR on the basis the record sufficiently showed nephew paid the debts/estate expenses voluntarily, without right or duty and had no protectable interest in the estate.