IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF VOSE
390 P.3d 238
Okla.2017Background
- Anne S. Vose died intestate on January 22, 2016; her surviving spouse is C.A. Vose, Jr., and the court-appointed administrator is her son, Robert E. Lee, III.
- Vose and Decedent signed an antenuptial agreement in May 2006 that waived many marital rights, including a distributive intestate share.
- Federal law (26 U.S.C. § 2010) permits a surviving spouse to use the decedent's Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion (DSUE) only if the executor files a timely federal estate tax return electing portability.
- Vose sought a district court order compelling Lee, as administrator, to prepare and timely file a federal estate tax return and elect portability of any DSUE; Vose offered to pay costs and review the return before filing.
- The district court ordered Lee to provide records, allow Vose review, and, if a DSUE exists, timely file the return electing portability; Lee appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction, federal preemption, lack of standing, and that the antenuptial agreement barred Vose’s interest.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding the probate court had authority to order the filing and that preemption and the antenuptial agreement did not bar Vose’s claim to the DSUE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vose) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / preemption | State probate court may adjudicate estate matters and compel administrator actions to protect beneficiaries. | Federal estate-tax scheme vests executor with discretion to elect portability; state order interferes and is preempted. | Court: probate court has statutory authority; complete preemption inapplicable; order not preempted. |
| Who may make portability election | Vose sought to have administrator file so he could benefit; he has a pecuniary interest in DSUE separate from intestate share. | Only the appointed executor may decide whether to elect portability under federal rules; Vose lacks power if not executor. | Court: federal rules permit state-law processes to determine who should act; Vose has an interest and court can compel administrator to act. |
| Standing given antenuptial agreement | Vose contends antenuptial waiver did not (and could not) waive future federal DSUE rights created after agreement. | Lee contends antenuptial agreement waived Vose’s distributive share and thus he lacks standing to pursue estate-related relief. | Court: antenuptial agreement does not bar Vose’s DSUE interest because portability did not exist when agreement was made; Vose has a pecuniary interest and standing. |
| Fiduciary duty to preserve estate assets vs. administrator discretion | Vose argues administrator must preserve estate value and protect spouse’s DSUE; court may order filing (Vose will pay). | Lee argues he may condition election on compensation and that election extends audit exposure; election is discretionary. | Court: administrator’s fiduciary duties require preserving estate assets and protecting interested parties; ordering timely filing and election was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Carlson, 367 P.3d 486 (Okla. 2016) (probate matters are of equitable cognizance)
- In re Estate of Bleeker, 168 P.3d 774 (Okla. 2007) (appellate review of equity decrees and probate principles)
- Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home, 123 P.3d 21 (Okla. 2005) (administrator duties to preserve estate and fiduciary obligations)
- Faulkenberry v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 602 P.2d 203 (Okla. 1979) (principles governing waiver of rights require knowledge and intent)
- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011) (state law that narrows an agency-allowed choice is not preemptive absent a federal regulatory objective)
- Devon Energy Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2012) (discussion of the narrow scope of complete preemption)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2006) (complete preemption and state-court jurisdiction commentary)