O'DONOGHUE v. DOOLEY
2016 OK 110
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Settlor David L. Dooley executed a trust and pour-over will in Sept. 2003, married Carolyn Collins the same day, and died Oct. 20, 2003; all his children predeceased him.
- Trust divided into Part A (amount sheltered from federal estate tax) and Part B (remaining assets/QTIP for surviving spouse's income). Part A paid five grandchildren specific gifts; Erin and David O’Donoghue received the balance of Part A per stirpes and were paid roughly $474,000 each.
- Part B (the Carolyn Ann Collins Dooley Trust) gives surviving spouse (Appellee) all income for life; on spouse’s death, accrued income goes to spouse’s estate and remaining principal is to be distributed to Erin and David per stirpes, terminating the trust.
- Both Erin and David survived Settlor but later died without lineal descendants (Erin died 2010 leaving David as beneficiary of her estate; David died 2013 leaving his widow Sandra as sole beneficiary of his estate).
- Appellant Sandra (David’s widow) sued for construction and accounting, claiming vested remainder interests passed to David’s estate and therefore to her; trial court granted summary judgment to Carolyn (surviving spouse), holding the per stirpes principal was contingent and lapsed; Court of Civil Appeals reversed; this Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandra) | Defendant's Argument (Carolyn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Erin and David’s remainder interests vested at Settlor's death so that, upon their deaths, the interests passed to their estates (and thus to Sandra) | Remainders vested at Settlor’s death (no survival condition); vested interests cannot lapse and passed to heirs/estate | Remainders were contingent on surviving the life tenant (Settlor’s spouse); per stirpes requires lineal descendants, and absence of lineal descendants causes lapse | Court: Remainders were intended for lineal descendants; per stirpes excludes spouses; because neither left lineal descendants, interests lapsed and principal will pass to income beneficiary (Carolyn) under Trust provisions |
| Proper construction of "per stirpes" and whether spouse of a devisee can take by representation | "Per stirpes" does not prevent passage to heirs/estate; represented heirs can include ultimate taker (Sandra as beneficiary of David’s estate) | "Per stirpes" means by root/line/stock — requires lineal descendants; spouse is not a lineal descendant and cannot take under per stirpes | Court: "Per stirpes" limits representation to lineal descendants; spouse is ineligible; Court of Civil Appeals’ broader use of "heirs"/representation was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dimick’s Will, 531 P.2d 1027 (Okla. 1975) (settlor’s intent controls trust construction)
- Matter of Tayrien’s Estate, 609 P.2d 752 (Okla. 1980) (presumption favoring interpretation that avoids intestacy)
- Hulett v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. in Clinton, 956 P.2d 879 (Okla. 1998) (same rule on ambiguous testamentary language)
- Moore v. McAlester, 428 P.2d 266 (Okla. 1967) (vesting of remainder interests at grantor’s death precedent relied on by dissent)
- Matter of the Estate of Hixon, 715 P.2d 1087 (Okla. 1985) (intent of settlor to be given effect when construing testamentary instruments)
- Conville v. Bakke, 400 P.2d 179 (Okla. 1964) (definition of vested remainder: ascertained person and free of condition precedent)