Opinion
120634
06-26-2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MERIN J. OAKLEY, SR. a.k.a. MERIN J. OAKLEY, Deceased, v. CHRISTOPHER OAKLEY, Appellee. MEKA OAKLEY, Appellant,
Bryan J. Nowlin, HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellant, Robert W. Giles, GILES LAW, P.C., Jenks, Oklahoma, for Appellee.
Mandate Issued: 10/24/2024
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA HONORABLE KURT G. GLASSCO, TRIAL JUDGE
Bryan J. Nowlin, HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellant,
Robert W. Giles, GILES LAW, P.C., Jenks, Oklahoma, for Appellee.
THOMAS E. PRINCE, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 Appellant, Meka Oakley, appeals an Order Allowing Final Account, Determining Heirship, Final Decree of Distribution and Discharge entered by the trial court which included an Order denying Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Admit Decedent's Holographic Last Will and Testament. The trial court refused to admit the holographic will to probate after the Parties stipulated to a report prepared by a handwriting expert who indicated that two letter "A's" included in the holographic will were not written by the decedent. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and applicable law, and find, in accordance with 84 O.S. § 54, the holographic will at issue was not entirely written by the decedent and, therefore, was properly denied admission to probate by the trial court. The Order of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Merin J. Oakley, Sr., passed away on July 13, 2018, and was survived by nine children. Appellant filed a Petition for Probate of Will and for Determination of Identity of Heirs, Devisees and Legatees on February 20, 2019. In the Petition, Appellant alleged that the decedent left a Last Will and Testament dated February 9, 1987, which allegedly was superseded by a holographic Last Will and Testament dated February 8, 2009. An initial hearing was held on March 19, 2019. Three witnesses testified. Only a copy of the holographic will was then available. Appellee, Christopher Oakley, objected to admission of the holographic will. He testified that he did not think his sisters attempted to mislead the trial court, but that his father said different things to different children. He testified that:
An earlier Last Will and Testament, dated September 21, 1983, is referenced in the record. None of the Parties argued, however, that this document should be admitted to probate. Consequently, the Parties appear to have been in agreement (or, minimally, did not dispute) that the February 9, 1987, instrument superseded the September 21, 1983, instrument.
I know the conversations I've had with him, you know. And I know that our conversations that my other siblings have also shared with me about him, and they all contradict each other, you know.
The holographic will consists of one page and is dated February 8, 2009. The document also is in the decedent's handwriting, save and except for the two letters "A" that are bolded in the following partial quote from the document:
Supersede
I, Merin James Oakley Sr. Bequest, Leave all real estate in Muskogee County & Tulsa to Merin James Oakley II [,] Mario J. Oakley, Merina J. Oakley [sic] Joint, [sic] owners Also [sic] any Inheritance Land [sic].
1. Christorpher [sic] Va'Shaun, - A Dollar -- Oakley
2. Frank M. Oakley A Dollar
3. Teela M. Frazier, A Dollar
4. Micheal J. Oakley A Dollar
These Four children does [sic] not get Any Real Estate.
***
The bolded font for two letter "A's" in this quoted language has been used to signify that, in the holographic will, the shape or handwritten form for these letters was different from other letter A's that were used in that document. There is, however, essentially, little resemblance to the letter "A's" in this quoted language and the actual shape or handwritten form for these letters that was used in the holographic will. The bolded font used here was utilized only for emphasis and descriptive purposes.
At the conclusion of the hearing on March 19, 2019, the trial court stated on the record, in part, that:
The Court does not have a firm belief as to the trustworthiness and the reliability of Petitioner's [Exhibit] 1 [i.e., the holographic will]; and, therefore, declines to admit the holographic copy.
The Court has reviewed the self-proving document of Mr. Oakley. It meets all the requirements of admissibility. It is signed in the presence of two witnesses on February 9, 1987.
***
And I will admit the '87 Will....
In its Order dated March 27, 2019, the trial court journalized the rejection of the holographic will to probate and specifically found that it did "not meet the requirements of proof of a lost or destroyed will as set forth in 58 O.S. § 82...". The trial court appointed Appellant as personal representative of the estate and the hearing was concluded.
¶3 On January 15, 2021, Appellant filed a "Motion for Interpretation of February 9, 1987 Last Will and Testament". On September 13, 2021, Appellant re-urged the admission of the holographic will to probate. She filed on that date a Petition to Admit Holographic Will Dated February 8, 2009, on the basis that the original version of the holographic will had been located. On February 10, 2022, Appellant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Support of Admitting to Probate Decedent's February 8, 2009, Holographic Last Will and Testament. Appellant urged the trial court to adopt the substantial compliance doctrine and accept the holographic will even though two letters included in the holographic will were not in decedent's handwriting. Appellee filed a Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment on February 22, 2022. A hearing was held on the same day that the Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed.
¶4 At the February 22, 2022, hearing, the Parties stipulated to the contents of a report prepared by a handwriting expert, Arthur Linville. According to Mr. Linville's report, the holographic will was written entirely by the decedent in his handwriting with the exception of two letter "A's" appearing on two lines of the holographic will immediately before the word "Dollar". The trial court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment but, after considering argument of counsel, stated on the record, in part, that:
The Court having considered the authority that is presented, and having heard the argument of Counsel, and the affidavit of the stipulated expert, Arthur Linville, finds that the Exhibit 1 of the purported Holographic Will, dated February 8th, 2009, should not be admitted, and it is not admitted.
That the prior Will, with the formalities drafted by Mr. Hendrix that was admitted on March 19th, 2019, remains admitted.
The trial court determined that the decedent's assets would pass according to his Last Will and Testament dated February 9, 1987, with certain provisions for pretermitted heirs. On July 20, 2022, an Order Allowing Final Account, Determining Heirship, Final Decree of Distribution and Discharge was entered by the trial court. Appellant timely commenced this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 Proceedings to admit a will to probate are in the nature of an equitable action and, on appeal, the decision of the trial court concerning issues of fact will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence. See In re Paull's Est., 1950 OK 8, ¶ 18, 199, 254 P.2d 357, 361; Barth v. Barth, 1995 OK CIV APP 83, ¶ 7, 901 P.2d 232, 233. This case also addresses issues of law. The issue of whether a "writing is sufficient, in form, to constitute a valid holographic will" is a question of law. See In re Bennett's Estate, 1958 OK 97, ¶ 10, 324 P.2d 862, 866; In the Matter of the Estate of Shaw, 2004 OK CIV APP 38, ¶ 4, 90 P.3d 588, 590. We review issues of law de novo. PNC Bank v. Unknown Successor Trustees, 2020 OK CIV APP 60, ¶ 18, 479 P.3d 238, 243. De novo review involves a plenary, independent, and non-deferential review of the trial court's legal rulings. Id.
ANALYSIS
¶6 Appellant's Br.-in-chief includes two numbered propositions of error. First, Appellant claims that there are no facts in dispute. We agree. The undisputed evidence indicates that the holographic will was written in the decedent's handwriting with the exception of two letter "A's" at two lines of the holographic will. Appellant argues that the trial court committed error when it rejected the holographic will and applied a strict compliance position with regard to 84 O.S. § 54. Appellant asserts that by requiring strict compliance with the statute, the trial court has disregarded the intent of the testator and that the primary purpose in construction of wills is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator. Appellee agrees that the primary purpose of construing wills is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator after a valid will has been admitted to probate. We find that the trial court reached the correct result for the correct reason.
Appellant includes five issues to be raised on appeal at Exhibit "C" of her Petition in Error. The first two issues are whether the trial court erred by refusing to admit the holographic will to probate and by distributing property in accordance with the terms of the 1987 Will. The third issue is whether the trial court applied the appropriate legal standard in denying admission of the holographic will to probate. The fourth issue is whether the trial court erred in granting the counter-motion for summary judgment to deny admission of the holographic will. All of those issues are addressed by this Opinion in response to Appellant's propositions of error with the exception that the record is not clear as to whether the trial court granted summary judgment to either party. The fifth and final issue raised by Appellant is whether the trial court's factual findings are against the clear weight of the evidence. In her Br.-in-chief, Appellant concedes that there is no dispute as to the facts. The record also indicates that there are no factual disputes regarding who wrote the holographic will. Therefore, we will not specifically address that issue in this Opinion.
¶7 Title 84 O.S. § 54 states that: "A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of this State, and need not be witnessed." 84 O.S. § 54 (emphasis supplied). It is presumed that the Legislature has expressed its intent in a statute and the "words of a statute will be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless it is contrary to the purpose and intent of the statute when considered as a whole." Accident Care and Treatment Center v. CSAA General Insurance Co., 2021 OK CIV APP 3, ¶ 29, 483 P.3d 1, 8-9. The Court "will not assume that the Legislature has done a vain and useless act. Rather it must interpret legislation so as to give effect to every word and sentence." Id. (citation omitted). Here, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the holographic will was not entirely written by the hand of the decedent himself. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not commit error when it applied the plain language of 84 O.S. § 54 to the facts of this case and did not admit the holographic will to probate.
¶8 At her second proposition, Appellant states that a number of jurisdictions have applied the rule of surplusage to holographic wills and that generally, the rule of surplusage provides that additional material in a holographic will which is not in the testator's writing may be stricken as harmless if the remaining portions constitute a valid holographic will. She claims that Oklahoma has adopted the rule of surplusage in the instance of extraneous letterhead and witness signatures in In re Bennett's Estate, 1958 OK 97, 324 P.2d 862, and in Hartman v. Perdue, 1961 OK 292, 365 P.2d 163. Appellant argues that the two extra letters that were not written by the decedent do not constitute material changes to the holographic will and that, if this Court does not apply the rule of surplusage, then an individual other than the testator would have the power to invalidate an otherwise valid holographic will by simply adding letters to the document. Appellant recognizes that appellate courts in Oklahoma have not specifically addressed the issue involved in this case, i.e., whether a holographic will that includes two letters written by someone other than the testator that are deemed immaterial letters can be admitted to probate under Oklahoma law. We hold that it cannot be admitted to probate because of the plain language of the statute, 84 O.S. § 54, which requires a holographic will to be entirely written by the testator.
We express no opinion as to whether the two "A's" constitute material or immaterial changes to the holographic will.
CONCLUSION
¶9 The undisputed facts demonstrate that the holographic will was not entirely written by the decedent. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of 84 O.S. § 54, we find that the trial court did not commit error when it refused to admit the holographic will to probate. Accordingly, the Order Allowing Final Account, Determining Heirship, Final Decree of Distribution and Discharge is affirmed.
BELL, J., concurs and MITCHELL, C.J., dissents.
MITCHELL, C.J., dissenting:
¶1 The majority holds that two capital letters "A" added to the will by an unknown party, but which do not alter the meaning of the provisions in which they appear, render the will invalid. I do not agree that a holographic will should be denied admission for failing to strictly comply with 84 O.S. §54 where the language that is not handwritten by the testator is mere surplusage that cannot be perceived as an attempt to defraud the court. Our jurisprudence supports this conclusion. See Hartman v. Perdue, 1961 OK 292, 365 P.2d 163 (later addition of two witness signatures did not render holographic will invalid); In re Bennett's Estate, 1958 OK 97, 324 P.2d 862 (holographic will on printed letterhead not invalid); In re Hail's Estate, 1923 OK 689, 235 P. 916 (holographic will dated with only month and year substantially complied with statute).
¶2 The two letters "A" added to the will were completely immaterial to the will and not alleged to be fraudulent. Their presence in no way altered Testator's clearly expressed intentions. As our appellate courts have held many, many times, the cardinal rule or primary purpose in construing a will is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator. The majority's application of strict statutory compliance with 84 O.S. §54 to invalidate the will violates this cardinal rule and only serves to defeat the testator's clearly expressed intentions. The result is inequitable and, in my view, seems unlikely to be what the Legislature intended. I would find the trial court erred by refusing to admit the decedent's February 8, 2009 holographic will to probate. I respectfully dissent.
E.g., Estate of Sneed, 1998 OK 8, 953 P.2d 1111; Estate of Eversole, 1994 OK 114, 885 P.2d 657; Estate of Flowers, 1993 OK 1146, 848 P.2d 1146; Lomon v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 1984 OK 68, 689 P.2d 306; Estate of Westfahl, 1983 OK 119, 674 P.2d 21; Estate of Smith v. Williams, 1983 OK 118, 674 P.2d 17; Matter of Bovaird's Estate, 1982 OK 48, 645 P.2d 500; Miller v. First Nat. Bank, 1981 OK 133, 637 P.2d 75; Bridgeford v. Chamberlin's Estate, 1977 OK 206, 573 P.2d 694.