BEBOUT v. EWELL, 2017 OK 22

Background

R.V. Bebout (Texas resident) died in 1980 owning mineral interests in Canadian County, Oklahoma; his Texas will left one-half to daughter Betty Ewell and one-half to granddaughter Betsy Kuykendall and made no provision for two grandsons (plaintiffs).
An ancillary probate was opened in Canadian County in 1981–82; petitions and the final account listed heirs including the grandsons but the Final Account sought distribution one-half to Betty and one-half to Betsy.
Notice of the October 14, 1982 final hearing was mailed to known heirs (including the grandsons) and published; the Notice did not include a copy of the Final Account but stated the Final Account and petition were on file with the court.
The grandsons did not appear; the court entered a Final Order distributing the minerals per the Final Account to Betty and Betsy in 1982.
In 2014 (≈32 years later) the grandsons sued to quiet title, arguing the 1982 Final Order was void on its face for lack of constitutionally sufficient notice and for failing to include pretermitted heirs; trial court and Court of Civil Appeals agreed below.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed: it held mailed notice that identified the hearing and put recipients on inquiry notice that the Final Account and petition were on file satisfied due process; errors of law (e.g., pretermitted-heir analysis or failure to appoint counsel for minors/nonresidents) do not render the decree facially void and the challenge was untimely.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1982 Final Order is void for lack of constitutionally sufficient notice	Grandsons: Notice was constitutionally inadequate because they were not mailed a copy of the Final Account showing the distribution that would be requested	Defendants: Notice complied with statutory requirements and informed heirs that Final Account and petition were on file, putting heirs on inquiry to inspect court file	Held: Notice was constitutionally sufficient; mailing the Final Account was not required and the Final Order is not void for lack of notice
Whether mistakes of law (e.g., failure to distribute to pretermitted heirs) render the decree void	Grandsons: Probate court should have applied pretermitted-heir statute to include them regardless of petitioned distribution	Defendants: Even if court erred on the law, judicial error does not make the judgment void; such errors are subject to timely appeal, not collateral attack decades later	Held: Legal errors do not make the judgment void; judgment remains conclusive absent timely challenge
Whether failure to appoint counsel for minor/nonresident heirs invalidates the decree	Grandsons: As minors/nonresidents they should have had court‑appointed counsel under §710; absence rendered proceedings invalid	Defendants: Appointment under §710 is discretionary and nonappointment does not affect validity; notice was received	Held: Even if appointment was improper, it would be an error of law not rendering the decree void; statute of limitations on challenge applies

Key Cases Cited

Booth v. McKnight, 70 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2003) (probate decree entered without constitutionally adequate notice is facially void when relief granted differs substantially from that pleaded)
Matter of Estate of Pope, 808 P.2d 640 (Okla. 1990) (probate proceedings are state action subject to due process protection)
Norman v. Trison Dev. Corp., 832 P.2d 6 (Okla. 1992) (facially void judgments may be attacked at any time)
Matter of Estate of Mouse, 864 P.2d 1284 (Okla. 1993) (judgment is not rendered void by mere mistake of law)
Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1988) (probate court action constitutes state action for constitutional purposes)
Factor v. Perkins, 22 P.2d 391 (Okla. 1933) (emphasizes stability of titles and property adjudications)