Background
- Husband (G.B. Eagleton) created a revocable trust before marrying Wife (Beverly) and transferred a house plus 40 acres (the Farm) into the Trust; Trust named Husband as trustee and children as remainder beneficiaries.
- Husband and Wife began living on the Farm in 2002 and continued to live there after Husband executed a deed in 2012 conveying the Farm to Daughter (Sheila); Wife did not sign that deed and disputes surrounding consideration and a separate house (600 Villard) exist.
- Husband died in 2014; Wife (still occupying the Farm) sued in 2015 seeking: (1) to void the 2012 deed, (2) a forced probate share in the Farm under 84 O.S. § 44, (3) a surviving spouse allowance under 58 O.S. § 314, and (4) recognition of homestead rights.
- Trial court denied Wife’s motion to declare the deed invalid, denied a forced share and surviving spouse allowance, and limited relief to personal property under 58 O.S. § 311; Wife appealed.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviews de novo, finds factual issues remain about waiver/abandonment of homestead and what personal/joint coverture property exists, and remands those unresolved issues to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Daughter/Estate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 deed conveying the Farm is void for violating homestead protections | Wife: Farm became homestead; Husband could not convey without Wife’s signature; deed therefore void | Daughter: Deed valid; Wife may have consented or waived homestead right; Farm was trust property | Question of fact: waiver/abandonment of homestead unresolved; trial court did not decide homestead occupancy—remanded |
| Whether Wife is entitled to a forced probate share in the Farm under 84 O.S. § 44 | Wife: If deed void, Farm remained decedent’s property and § 44 entitles surviving spouse to forced share | Estate: Farm was separate property in revocable trust; modern § 44 limits forced share to joint industry property, not separate trust property | Held: No forced share—Farm was separate property and not shown to be joint industry; Thomas inapplicable under current § 44 |
| Whether Wife may receive a surviving spouse allowance from the Farm under 58 O.S. § 314 | Wife: Farm should be treated as estate asset available to fund temporary allowance | Estate: § 314 allows drawing only from property spouse will inherit via probate; Farm was not estate property or subject to forced share | Held: Denied—spouse allowance cannot be funded from property not part of the probate estate |
| Whether trial court sufficiently determined exempt personal property and homestead rights | Wife: Trial court failed to make full determination of exempt assets and homestead occupancy rights | Estate: Trial court addressed personal property under § 311; unresolved questions remain for trial fact-finding | Held: Trial court’s order addressed only § 311 personal property; unresolved issues (homestead occupancy and joint industry determination) remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., 684 P.2d 553 (Okla. 1984) (treated assets in a revocable trust as includable for forced-share purposes under the older § 44)
- Matter of Estate of Hardaway, 872 P.2d 395 (Okla. 1994) (discusses forced-share and related probate issues)
- Matter of Estate of Hardaway, 872 P.2d 400 (Okla. 1994) (surviving spouse allowance under § 314 described as drawing on the spouse’s eventual probate share)
- In re Estate of Littleton, 313 P.3d 1062 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013) (separate property in a revocable trust is not probate estate for § 44 forced-share absent enhancement by joint industry)
- Matter of Wallace's Estate, 648 P.2d 828 (Okla. 1982) (homestead right of occupancy is a personal right, distinct from title or devise)