Powell v. Dicksion
2011 OK 96
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Probate of a holographic will filed by the decedent's brother/PR Archie Dicksion; will named daughter as administrator but that designation crossed out.
- Powell, biological son born out of wedlock and adopted, seeks to be an omitted heir after DNA testing confirms paternity.
- DNA testing leads to Powell being recognized as an unintentionally omitted heir entitled to a statutory share; court awards Powell his share.
- Whispering Pines LLC is intertwined with estate as a 50% owner through the decedent and PR; company assets treated as estate assets, affecting proceedings.
- Trial court final accounting approved; Powell and Mailloux challenge holographic will admission, allocation, and the PR’s status; post-judgment motions filed, including a belated new-trial motion treated as §1031.1 application.
- On remand, issues include whether the holographic will admission stands, whether §215 applies in probate/intestacy, and whether a business partner may serve as personal representative under §122.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of objection to holographic will | Powell argues objection timely | Dicksion argues objection untimely | Objection not untimely; merits may be considered on remand |
| Applicability of §215 paternity statute to probate/intestacy | Powell seeks posthumous paternity for inheritance | Respondents contend §215 predates DNA era and does not apply posthumously | §215 applies to intestate and probate proceedings; posthumous DNA testing authorized |
| Prohibition on appointing business partner as personal representative | Powell objects due to partner status in Whispering Pines LLC | PR argues restriction applies only when intestate or not named in will | Rule applies to intestate situations or when partner is not named in will; PR cannot serve |
| Effect of remedy on remand and final disposition | Powell seeks correction of accounting and proper distribution | Estate seeks finality and adherence to will | Remand to determine validity of holographic will and proper heirship distribution |
| Objections timing under 58 O.S.2001 §104 and related statutes | Objection filed within equitable period; probate proceedings are equitable | No explicit time limit in §104 for will-administration objections | Objections timely under equitable considerations; section remains applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of King, 1990 OK 138, 837 P.2d 463 (OK Supreme Court (1990)) (addressed burden and pre-death paternity determination under §215(d))
- In re Estate of Gertrude Jo Geller, 1999 OK CIV APP 45, 980 P.2d 665 (OK Civil App. (1999)) (post-death paternity testing not contemplated by §215(d))
- Ginn v. Knight, 1924 OK 806, 106 Okla. 4, 232 P. 936 (OK Supreme Court (1924)) (pleading form vs. substance; substance controls)
- Burns v. Lawson, 1940 OK 459, 188 Okla. 181, 107 P.2d 555 (OK Supreme Court (1940)) (sufficiency of proof under paternity statute)
- State ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Perdue, 2008 OK 103, 204 P.3d 1279 (OK Supreme Court (2008)) (constitutional/administrative precedent cited)
- Sparks v. Steele, 1972 OK 127, 501 P.2d 1106 (OK Supreme Court (1972)) (appointment as administrator is mandatory if competent)
- In re Speers, 2008 OK 16, 179 P.3d 1265 (OK Supreme Court (2008)) (considers contesting will and related procedures)