BEBOUT v. EWELL
2017 OK 22
| Okla. | 2017Background
- R.V. Bebout (Texas resident) died in 1980 owning mineral interests in Canadian County, Oklahoma; his will left one-half to daughter Betty Ewell and one-half to granddaughter Betsy Kuykendall; grandsons John and James Bebout (pretermitted heirs) were not mentioned.
- Ancillary probate was opened in Canadian County in 1981–1982; petitions listed heirs including the grandsons.
- Administrator filed a Final Account (Sept. 1982) requesting distribution one-half to Betty and one-half to Betsy; a hearing was set for Oct. 14, 1982.
- Notice of the hearing was mailed to known heirs (including the grandsons) and published; the notice referenced the Final Account and petition on file but did not include a copy of the Final Account. The grandsons did not appear.
- The court entered a Final Order (Oct. 14, 1982) distributing the minerals to Betty and Betsy. Thirty-two years later (2014) the grandsons sought to quiet title, arguing the 1982 Final Order was void for inadequate notice and for failure to include pretermitted heirs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of notice for probate final account hearing | Grandsons: notice was constitutionally insufficient because it did not include a copy of the Final Account, so they were not adequately apprised of the relief sought | Defendants: notice complied with statute (mailed notice + publication) and informed heirs that account and petition were on file, creating inquiry notice | Court: mailed notice that identifies the hearing and states the account and petition are on file is constitutionally sufficient; no requirement to mail the Final Account itself |
| Whether the Final Order is void for lack of notice and therefore subject to collateral attack after 30+ years | Grandsons: Final Order is facially void (Booth) and may be vacated at any time for defective notice | Defendants: judgment roll shows statutory notice, so the order is not void; collateral attack is untimely | Court: Final Order not void for lack of proper notice; collateral attack is untimely after decades |
| Effect of alleged legal error (failure to include pretermitted heirs / failure to appoint counsel for minor/nonresident heirs) | Grandsons: probate court had a statutory duty to include pretermitted heirs and to protect minors/nonresidents, so omission renders order voidable | Defendants: any such errors are mistakes of law or discretionary omissions that do not make the judgment void | Court: mistakes of law or discretionary nonappointments do not render a judgment void; errors must be timely challenged (statutory limitations apply) |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. McKnight, 70 P.3d 855 (2003) (probate decree entered without constitutionally adequate notice may be void; distribution differing from pleaded relief is critical for notice analysis)
- Tulsa Prof’l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (probate court actions constitute state action subject to due process)
- Estate of Mouse, 864 P.2d 1284 (1993) (a judgment based on a mistake of law is not void)
- Norman v. Trison Dev. Corp., 832 P.2d 6 (1992) (facially void judgments may be attacked at any time)