IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF VOSE
2017 OK 3
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Anne S. Vose died intestate January 22, 2016. Her husband C.A. Vose, Jr. (Vose) married her in 2006; she had a 2006 antenuptial agreement with Vose. Her son Robert E. Lee III (Lee) was appointed administrator of the estate after contested probate proceedings.
- Portability of a Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion Amount (DSUE) requires the executor to timely file a federal estate tax return and make an irrevocable election under 26 U.S.C. § 2010; portability was created after the parties’ antenuptial agreement.
- Vose filed an application asking the probate court to compel the administrator to prepare and file a federal estate tax return and elect portability of any DSUE for Vose’s benefit; Vose agreed to pay costs of preparing the return.
- The probate court ordered Lee to provide records, allow Vose review, and — if a DSUE exists — to timely file an estate tax return electing portability; Vose was given 60 days to review the return before filing.
- Lee appealed, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to federal preemption/executor discretion, that Vose lacked standing due to the antenuptial waiver of intestate rights, and that the antenuptial agreement barred the DSUE claim.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed: state probate courts have jurisdiction, preemption did not apply, the antenuptial agreement did not bar a portability interest, and Lee’s fiduciary duties justified the order to file and elect portability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vose) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / federal preemption | Probate court may adjudicate estate matters and compel actions to preserve estate interests | Federal estate tax regime gives executor sole discretion to elect portability; federal law preempts state interference | Held: No complete preemption; state probate authority can order filing to protect estate interests and survivng spouse’s DSUE claim |
| Executor discretion to elect portability | Court may direct administrator to file/elect to preserve surviving spouse’s pecuniary interest | Election is a discretionary federal act for the executor; court order infringes federal discretion | Held: Ordering filing/election does not conflict with §2010 because election is permitted by federal law and state fiduciary duties can constrain executor’s choice without thwarting congressional purpose |
| Standing / antenuptial waiver of intestate share | Vose has a distinct pecuniary interest in portability (DSUE) separate from intestate distributive rights | Antenuptial agreement waived Vose’s intestate distributive rights; thus he has no standing to seek relief | Held: Vose has standing; DSUE is a federal-created interest (post-dating the agreement) and the antenuptial waiver did not clearly and expressly waive this unforeseen federal statutory interest |
| Fiduciary duties / administrator may seek consideration | Administrator may condition election on compensation or refuse election to protect estate | Lee contends he may demand consideration or refuse election because DSUE benefits only surviving spouse and election may increase audit risk | Held: Administrator’s fiduciary duty to preserve estate and protect interests of interested persons justified court order requiring timely filing and election; Vose offered to pay costs, and risk did not outweigh fiduciary obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Carlson, 367 P.3d 486 (Okla. 2016) (probate proceedings are equitable and appellate review defers to probate court unless against weight of evidence)
- In re Estate of Holcomb, 63 P.3d 9 (Okla. 2002) (probate court equitable cognizance and duties)
- In re Estate of Sneed, 953 P.2d 1111 (Okla. 1998) (standards for reviewing probate equity decrees)
- Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (complete preemption doctrine explained)
- Devon Energy Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, 693 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2012) (complete preemption is narrow; federal law must substitute federal cause of action)
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (framework for preemption analysis; state law not superseded absent clear congressional intent)