In re Ware's Estate

4 Citing cases

  1. HEIN v. HEIN

    1967 OK 163 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 7 times
    In Hein, we determined that a testator/testatrix is presumed to know the law in effect at the time of the execution of a will.

    After determining the facts, as to which there was no controversy, the court found the basic problem to be that of determining the testator's intent in execution of the will. The trial court found that the reasoning upon which we based the conclusion stated in In re Ware's Estate, Okla., 348 P.2d 176, was decisive of the issues. This reasoning, when applied to the facts of the instant appeal, clearly shows that the Uniform Adoption Act of 1957, 10 O.S. 1961 § 60.16[ 10-60.

  2. Hughes v. Fidelity Bank, N.A.

    1982 OK 45 (Okla. 1982)   Cited 6 times
    In Hughes v. Fidelity Bank N.A., 645 P.2d 492 (Okla. 1982) we explained that an allegation of fraud raised an issue of fact, that fraud was an exception to the application of an affirmative defense of limitations in that case, and that this precluded dismissal.

    Reference to the laws of descent and distribution and the use of this phrase should not be taken out of context to substitute an intestate distribution contrary to the testatrix's intent. In re Ware's Estate, 348 P.2d 176 (Okla. 1960). In light of the above we reverse the trial court's order sustaining appellees motion to dismiss and hold that appellants, as devisees and legatees of the will, and (including all of the heirs in question) were entitled to notice, and having such standing, could properly bring these causes of action in fraud.

  3. Conville v. Bakke

    1964 OK 111 (Okla. 1965)   Cited 13 times
    In Conville v. Bakke, 400 P.2d 179, 192-93 (Okla. 1964), this Court discussed the Legislature's intent in enacting the Adoption Act.

    However, we pointed out in the latter decision that adoption and the nature and extent of rightful inheritance by an adopted child are solely for the Legislature to determine. And, in In re Ware's Estate (Okla.), 348 P.2d 176, which case arose prior to the Uniform Adoption Code, we held that an adoptive child of testatrix's deceased grandchild could not inherit under will providing for devolution to the child of a deceased grandchild by right of representation. But it also is pointed out that when testator's intention is left in doubt then statutes restricting devolution, or bearing upon relationship of testatrix and claimants, come into play in determining the testator's intention.

  4. Thomas v. Thomas

    258 N.C. 590 (N.C. 1963)   Cited 10 times

    ted by such person after the testator's death does not take. Among the authorities from other jurisdictions in accord with this view, we cite the following: Morgan v. Keefe, 135 Conn. 254, 63 A.2d 148; Comer v. Comer, 195 Ga. 79, 23 S.E.2d 420, 144 A.L.R. 664; Everitt v. LaSpeyre, 195 Ga. 377, 24 S.E.2d 381; Belfield v. Findlay, 389 Ill. 526, 60 N.E.2d 403; Orme v. Northern Trust Co., 29 Ill. App.2d 75, 172 N.E.2d 413; Peirce v. Farmers State Bank, 222 Ind. 116, 51 N.E.2d 480; Casper v. Helvie, 83 Ind. App. 166, 146 N.E. 123; Hutchins v. Browne, 253 Mass. 55, 147 N.E. 899; In re Chapple's Estate, 338 Mich. 246, 61 N.W.2d 37; Melek v. Curators of University of Missouri, 213 Mo. App. 572, 250 S.W. 614; Parker v. Carpenter, 77 N.H. 453, 92 A. 955; In re Graham's Will, 73 N.Y.S.2d 240; In re Hall's Will, 127 N.Y.S.2d 445; In re Peabody's Will, 17 Misc.2d 656, 185 N.Y.S.2d 591; Albright v. Albright, 116 Ohio St. 668, 157 N.E. 760; Central Trust Co. v. Hart, 82 Ohio App. 450, 80 N.E.2d 920; In re Ware's Estate (1958 Okla.), 348 P.2d 176; In re Puterbaugh's Estate, 261 Pa. 235, 104 A. 601; In re Holton's Estate, 399 Pa. 241, 159 A.2d 883, 86 A.L.R.2d 1; Cochran v. Cochran, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 259, 95 S.W. 731; Murphy v. Slaton, 154 Tex. 35, 273 S.W.2d 588; Trueax v. Black, 53 Wn.2d 537, 335 P.2d 52; Lichter v. Thiers, 139 Wis. 481, 121 N.W. 153; 86 A.L.R.2d Anno: Adopted Child — Rights Under Will, page 58, et seq. The minority view, permitting children adopted after the testator's death to be included when the word "children" is used to designate a class which is to take under the will, is represented by the following cases: Dyer v. Lane, 202 Ark. 571, 151 S.W.2d 678; In re Stanford's Estate, 49 Cal.2d 120, 315 P.2d 681; Meek v. Ames, 177 Kan. 565, 280 P.2d 957; Edmands v. Tice (1958 Ky.), 324 S.W.2d 491; In re Patrick's Will, 259 Minn. 193, 106 N.W.2d 888.