Court Opinion

ID: 9537996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:28:22.151115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:17.057445
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I must respectfully dissent in part from the majority’s opinion as I believe that portion of trial court’s decision pertaining to Mattie’s estate exceeded its jurisdictional power in this matter. This was a proceeding for determination of heirship under 84 O.S.1981, § 251, et seq. It is not an ordinary civil action, but a special proceeding limited to the determination of who are the heirs of the deceased.1 The deceased in this case was James Merchie Osborn and the determination of his heirs was the only issue properly before the trial court — and consequently this Court. I would affirm those rulings.
The claims against Mattie’s estate, however, were outside the trial court’s limited jurisdiction in this proceeding and the rulings thereon should be vacated. Those matters should be determined in another action which is appropriate to those issues.
Additionally, while I do not agree that it is even properly before us, I feel compelled to take issue with the majority’s treatment of the questions raised regarding laches and the statute of limitations. Unlike the majority, I believe the statute of limitations barred the collateral heirs entirely. Also, I believe that the trial court’s finding that the claim was barred by laches is supportable and not against the clear weight of the evidence. See, Horrigan v. Gibson, 87 Okl. 1, 206 P. 219 (1922).
I am authorized to state that Justice DOOLIN joins with me in the views expressed herein.

. See, Homer v. Lester, 95 Okl. 284, 219 P. 392 (1923); In re Jackson’s Estate, 117 Okl. 151, 245 P. 874 (1926); Anderson v. Peck, D.C.Okl., 53 F.2d 257; In re Radovich's Estate, 48 Cal.2d 116, 308 P.2d 14 (1957). See also, State, ex rel., Blackhawk v. District Court of Osage County, 190 Okl. 659, 126 P.2d 255 (1942).