IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF VOSE
2017 OK 3
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Decedent Anne Vose died in 2016; her surviving spouse C.A. Vose, Jr. (Vose) married her in 2006 and they executed an antenuptial agreement in May 2006. Decedent’s son Robert E. Lee III (Lee) was appointed administrator of the estate after contested probate proceedings.
- Portability (DSUE) under 26 U.S.C. § 2010 allows a surviving spouse to use the deceased spouse’s unused estate tax exclusion, but only if the deceased’s executor timely files an estate tax return electing portability.
- Vose filed an application asking the probate court to compel Lee, as administrator, to prepare and timely file a federal estate tax return and make the irrevocable portability election (agreeing to pay filing costs and review the return before filing).
- The district court ordered Lee to provide records, allowed Vose review, and required the administrator to timely file an estate tax return and elect portability if a DSUE exists; Lee appealed.
- On appeal Lee argued lack of jurisdiction (preemption by federal law), that he alone had discretionary authority under federal law to elect portability, that Vose lacked standing because the antenuptial agreement waived his intestate rights, and that the antenuptial agreement barred Vose’s interest in the DSUE.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed: the probate court had jurisdiction, federal preemption did not bar the order, the antenuptial agreement did not waive an unforeseeable DSUE interest, Vose had standing, and Lee’s fiduciary duties supported the order to file and elect portability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vose) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / federal preemption | State probate court can order administrator to preserve estate assets and adjudicate rights; court may compel filing for portability | Federal estate tax rules grant executor exclusive discretion to elect portability; state action is preempted and divests jurisdiction | Court: No complete preemption; probate court has authority under state probate statutes to adjudicate and protect estate interests; order not preempted |
| Who may make portability election | Vose sought court order compelling appointed administrator to file and elect so surviving spouse can use DSUE | Lee asserted 26 U.S.C. §2010 and Treasury regs give appointed executor discretion not to elect portability | Court: Federal law permits election but is silent on state-law fiduciary obligations; probate court may require administrator to act to preserve estate assets and beneficiary interests |
| Standing / interest in DSUE | Vose has a pecuniary interest in portability separate from intestate share and thus standing to seek relief | Lee contends antenuptial agreement waived Vose’s intestate/distributive rights, so Vose lacks standing | Court: Vose has independent pecuniary interest in DSUE; standing exists unless antenuptial agreement clearly bars that interest |
| Effect of antenuptial agreement | DSUE arose after agreement and was unforeseeable; therefore agreement did not waive this federal-created interest | Agreement expressly waived distributive share and marital rights; it bars Vose’s interest and prevents court-ordered election for his benefit | Court: Agreement does not clearly and expressly waive an unforeseeable federal statutory interest created later; antenuptial did not bar Vose’s DSUE interest; fiduciary duties require preserving that interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Bleeker, 168 P.3d 774 (Okla. 2007) (probate equity principles and when beneficiary may act in aid of probate)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2006) (discussion of complete preemption and state-court jurisdiction)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (framework for field and conflict preemption analysis)
- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., 562 U.S. 323 (2011) (state law restriction on a federal choice does not automatically imply preemption absent a federal objective requiring the choice)
- Devon Energy Production Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, 693 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2012) (explanation of narrow scope of complete preemption)