IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF VOSE
2017 OK 3
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Anne S. Vose died intestate on January 22, 2016; her spouse C.A. Vose, Jr. (Vose) married her in 2006 and they signed an antenuptial agreement before marriage; Robert E. Lee III (Lee), Decedent's son, was appointed administrator of the estate.
- Portability of the Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion Amount (DSUE) under 26 U.S.C. § 2010 allows a surviving spouse to use the decedent's unused federal estate tax exclusion, but only if the executor files a timely estate tax return and makes an irrevocable election.
- Vose filed an application in state probate court asking the 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 the return-preparation costs and requested time to review the return before filing.
- The district court ordered Lee (the administrator) to provide records, permit review, and, if a DSUE existed, timely file the estate tax return electing portability; Vose was allowed 60 days to review and was to pay filing costs.
- Lee appealed, arguing lack of state subject-matter jurisdiction (preemption by federal law), that the antenuptial agreement barred Vose's interest (standing), and that the federal statute gives the executor sole discretion to elect portability.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the probate court, holding the state court had jurisdiction, the order was not preempted by federal law, the antenuptial agreement did not bar Vose’s DSUE interest, and Lee’s fiduciary duties supported the order to file and elect portability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vose) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state probate court may order administrator to file estate tax return and elect DSUE portability | State probate court has authority over estate administration and may compel administrator to preserve estate assets (including electing DSUE) and protect surviving spouse's pecuniary interest | Federal law vests the executor with discretion to elect portability; state order conflicts with federal law and thus is preempted | Court held probate court has statutory authority; order not preempted and within jurisdiction |
| Whether federal preemption (including complete preemption) bars state-court relief | N/A (Vose argued relief was consistent with federal rules and allowed by state probate authority) | The election is a federal choice; state compulsion interferes with executor's statutory discretion and may be preempted | Court rejected complete preemption; no clear congressional purpose to displace state probate duties; state order did not conflict with federal law |
| Whether Vose has standing to seek the filing/election given antenuptial agreement waiver of intestate share | Vose has an independent pecuniary interest in portability (increase in his own exclusion); antenuptial waiver of distributive intestate share does not necessarily waive future federal portability rights created after agreement | Antenuptial agreement waived Vose’s distributive rights, so he is not an interested person and lacks standing; agreement bars claim | Court held Vose has standing because DSUE is a distinct statutory interest not clearly waived by the 2006 antenuptial agreement (portability was not foreseeable then) |
| Whether antenuptial agreement prohibits election or otherwise forbids relief compelling administrator | Antenuptial agreement does not expressly waive rights created by later federal law; waivers do not bind unless knowingly relinquished with awareness of the right | Agreement expressly waived right to distributive share; Lee argues that waiver reaches this interest and court order violates agreement | Court held agreement did not clearly and expressly waive DSUE interest (was unforeseeable when signed), so order did not violate agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Carlson, 367 P.3d 486 (Okla. 2016) (probate proceedings are equitable and appellate review defers to trial court unless clearly against law or evidence)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2006) (discussion of complete preemption and state-court jurisdiction implications)
- Devon Energy Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, 693 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2012) (complete preemption is narrow; explanation of doctrine)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (U.S. 2012) (framework for federal preemption analysis and deference to state police powers absent clear congressional intent)
- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., 562 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2011) (state law restrictions do not automatically imply preemption where federal regulation merely affords a choice)
- Faulkenberry v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 602 P.2d 203 (Okla. 1979) (waiver principles: waiver of rights requires knowing and voluntary relinquishment)
- In re Estate of Bleeker, 168 P.3d 774 (Okla. 2007) (equitable doctrines permit beneficiaries to act in special circumstances to protect estate interests)