BEBOUT v. EWELL, 392 P.3d 699

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; grandsons John and James Bebout were not named.
Ancillary probate in Canadian County was opened in 1981–1982; the Amended Petition and Final Account listed heirs including the grandsons, but the Final Account requested distribution one-half to Ewell and one-half to Kuykendall.
Notice of the October 14, 1982 final hearing was mailed to known heirs (including the grandsons) and published; the Notice stated the Final Account and petition were on file but did not include a copy of the Final Account.
The grandsons did not appear; the court entered a Final Order distributing the minerals per the Final Account.
Thirty-two years later (2014) the grandsons filed a quiet-title action claiming the 1982 Final Order was void for lack of constitutionally sufficient notice and that they were pretermitted heirs entitled to shares; lower courts agreed but the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1982 Final Order was void for lack of constitutionally sufficient notice	Grandsons: Notice was constitutionally deficient because they were not mailed a copy of the Final Account and thus were not adequately informed of the relief sought	Defendants: Statutory notice (mailing notice of hearing and publication) was provided; mailing the Final Account was not required and Notice put heirs on inquiry to inspect the file	Held: Notice was constitutionally sufficient; Final Order not void for lack of notice
Whether failing to mail the Final Account violates due process	Grandsons: Due process required mailing the Final Account when personal representative’s distribution was adverse to heirs	Defendants: Statute did not require mailing the Final Account; the Notice informed heirs the account was on file	Held: No constitutional requirement to mail the Final Account; inquiry notice was adequate
Whether the probate court’s alleged legal error (omitting pretermitted heirs) renders the decree void	Grandsons: Court should have adjusted distribution under pretermitted heir statute regardless of pleadings	Defendants: Any statutory or legal error is a mistake of law and does not make the judgment void	Held: Mistake of law does not render judgment void; such errors must be timely appealed
Timeliness of collateral attack on long‑final probate decree	Grandsons: Attack is warranted despite passage of time because decree allegedly void on its face	Defendants: Final adjudications in probate are subject to ordinary limitations; collateral attack after decades is untimely	Held: Collateral attack was untimely; final order immune from attack after 30+ years absent facial voidness, which was not shown

Key Cases Cited

Booth v. McKnight, 70 P.3d 855 (Okla. 2003) (a probate decree entered without constitutionally adequate notice is void; notice must apprise heirs of relief actually sought)
House v. Town of Dickson, 193 P.3d 964 (Okla. 2007) (judgment is not void where extrinsic evidence is necessary to show a jurisdictional defect)
Tulsa Prof’l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1988) (probate court’s actions constitute state action subject to Due Process)
Matter of Estate of Pope, 808 P.2d 640 (Okla. 1990) (due process notice standards in probate)
Estate of Mouse, 864 P.2d 1284 (Okla. 1993) (errors of law do not make a judgment void)