Saturday, January 31, 2015

The decedent said what he meant, and meant what he said....

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals recently addressed competing claims based on the dispositive provision of a decedent's will.  Estate of Bosworth, 2015 OK CIV APP 3.  The Court was required to determine whether the decedent's mineral interests passed under the will's residuary provision, or under a more general statement of the decedent's intent.

The decedent's estate held a significant number of mineral interests.  But the decedent's will contained no specific dispositive provision addressing these mineral interests.  Instead, the will contained the following provision:
I hereby give, devise and bequeath all the rest and residue of my property, whether the same be real, personal or mixed, wheresoever situated, unto Stephenie Ann Parks of Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. If Stephenie Ann Parks predeceases me or fails to survive for sixty (60) days after my death, then I direct that all the rest and residue of my property, whether the same be real or personal be given, devised and bequeathed to Mary Jane Pope. In the event that Stephenie Ann Parks and Mary Jane Pope both predecease me or fail to survive for sixty (60) days after my death, then I direct that all the rest and residue of my property, whether the same be real or personal be given to Brandon James Parks and Jonathan Kyle Parks, per stirpes, in equal shares, share and share alike. If either predeceases me with no lineal descendants, then the entire residuary shall be distributed to the survivor. In every case, if said distribution is a mineral interest and is made to any beneficiary, said distribution shall be made as the sole and separate property of that beneficiary and said beneficiary shall maintain said interest as their sole and separate property. It is the intent of the Testatrix that such interests be retained within the Freeman family and not be alienated from the family by divorce.
In reading the above provision, it must first be recognized that Ms. Parks was not a member of the "Freeman family."  The last sentence of the provision indicates that the decedent wanted his mineral interests to remain in the Freeman family, but his will did not contain a specific provision disposing of the mineral interests.

Explaining the issue, the Court stated:
Decedent's devise and bequest of the residue of her estate, including real and personal property, to Stephenie Parks is clear and distinct and is not affected by the general statements coming after that devise and bequest. The devise and bequest of the residue of the estate is not affected by the statement that the mineral interests should be the sole and separate property of the beneficiary. This bequest is also not affected by the Will's provision in its residuary portion stating, "In every case, if said distribution is a mineral interest and is made to any beneficiary, said distribution shall be made as the sole and separate property of that beneficiary and said beneficiary shall maintain said interests as their sole and separate property." This statement does not go to the actual devise of the mineral interests but indicates how the mineral interests should be treated as to the beneficiary named in the residuary clause who ultimately receives the residue of Decedent's property. As evidenced by the next sentence in the Will, Decedent is concerned about the ownership of the mineral interests by the beneficiary in case of a divorce. Specifically, the Will states, "It is the intent of Testatrix that such interests be retained within the Freeman family and not be alienated from the family by divorce." There is no devise of the mineral interests to the Freeman family in the residuary provision or any other provision of the Will.
In light of this decision, will drafters should be careful to ensure that dispositive provisions are clear, and explain to their clients that general statements of intent will not control the disposition of their estate.