IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PIERCE
2017 OK CIV APP 25
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Christopher H. Pierce was the primary beneficiary of a 1994 irrevocable trust (the Trust) that held title to a Nichols Hills residence; the Trust granted Pierce a power to appoint the trust principal "by will" to the issue of Pierce then living and required that any exercise "make specific reference to the power granted."
- Pierce married Vanessa in 1996; they signed a prenuptial agreement that had Vanessa release "all rights" in Pierce’s property except specified benefits (insurance, payments, household items, medical insurance, $1,000/month survivor support, etc.) and reserved each party "complete control" of their separate property.
- Pierce executed a 2013 will devising a life estate in the Nichols Hills property to Vanessa and the remainder to his minor son, CP; Pierce died in 2014 and Vanessa filed for probate and served as personal representative and guardian for CP.
- Appellants (Pierce’s adult children from a prior marriage) moved for partial summary judgment arguing (1) the prenuptial agreement precluded Vanessa from receiving the devised interest beyond the prenup provisions, and (2) Pierce failed to validly exercise the Trust’s power of appointment because his will did not reference the Trust’s power and attempted to benefit a non-object (Vanessa).
- The district court held (a) the prenup did not prevent Pierce from voluntarily devising additional property to Vanessa, (b) Vanessa is not an object of the Trust power so the life estate to her was invalid, and (c) Pierce effectively exercised the power as to CP so CP took the remainder in fee. Appellants appealed those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prenup barred Vanessa from taking the devised interest | Prenup’s release of "all rights" in Pierce’s estate controls; only prenup-specified benefits allowed | Prenup set a minimum (a "floor") but Pierce retained "complete control" of separate property and could voluntarily give more by will | Prenup did not preclude Pierce from devising additional property to Vanessa; summary judgment for Vanessa affirmed |
| Whether Pierce’s will validly exercised the Trust’s power of appointment despite lacking a specific reference to the power | Failure to reference the Trust per paragraph 4.12 invalidates exercise of the power | Oklahoma law (Power of Appointment Act and Restatement §18.3) allows donor-imposed additional formalities to be disregarded when not significant; the will sufficiently identified the trust property and manifest intent | Failure to reference the Trust did not invalidate exercise as to CP; summary judgment for CP affirmed |
| Whether appointing a life estate to Vanessa was permitted by the Trust | The entire appointment is invalid because Vanessa is not an object and CP’s interest indirectly benefits Vanessa | Vanessa is not within the restricted class; donor’s restriction controls | Appointment to Vanessa invalid (she is not an object); appointment of the remainder to CP remains effective and vests in fee |
Key Cases Cited
- Carmichael v. Beller, 914 P.2d 1051 (Okla. 1996) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
- In re Estate of Bell-Levine, 293 P.3d 964 (Okla. 2012) (de novo review of legal rulings)
- Edwards v. Urice, 99 P.3d 256 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004) (applying Restatement to powers of appointment issues)
- In re Allen A. Atwood Trust, 23 P.3d 309 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001) (discussing donor-imposed formalities and statutory interpretation of powers of appointment)
- Berry v. Cooley, 109 P.2d 1081 (Okla. 1940) (vesting of remainder interest on contingency fulfillment)