In the Matter of the Estate of Powers: Spousal Allowances
Probates can get messy. Even if you have a will, there is no guarantee that your spouse and heirs will not squabble over your property and the money that might be tied up in the estate when you die. The Lloyd Powers probate is a recent example of this phenomenon. In that probate, a familial fight for estate money and authority to distribute the estate assets wound up in the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. The opinion, In the Matter of the Estate of Powers, 2022 OK CIV APP 26,_P3.d_, was released in early July and affirmed the Order Allowing Final Account and Distribution of the Estate entered by the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma over the objections of the decedent’s surviving spouse, Becky Powers.
Background
The decedent had lived in Colorado, and the initial probate proceeding was filed in Denver County, Colorado, where the domiciliary estate (main, home estate) was located, but because the decedent had mineral interests in Oklahoma, an Ancillary Probate was necessary for the ancillary estate (secondary assets, typically in another state). Sydney Powers, Lloyd’s daughter, and Corey Powers, his son, were appointed Administrators in Colorado. When their Petition for Ancillary Probate was admitted to the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma, Sydney was appointed Personal Representative of the Estate.
Becky, the decedent’s surviving spouse, filed a Motion to Vacate the appointment of Sydney as Personal Representative, even though the appointment was consistent with her deceased husband’s will. The district court denied the motion, Becky appealed, and the decision to deny the motion was separately affirmed by a different Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals division.
In September 2020, Sydney filed a Final Account detailing that all of the mineral rights had been sold and the proceeds from that sale remained in the estate. Sydney stated that there were unpaid obligations in the Colorado estate, and she requested to transfer the monetary assets to the domiciliary estate to pay off the rest of the debts, which had been one of the first provisions of Lloyd’s will.
In October 2020, Becky filed an Objection to the Final Account, asserting that the probate assets in Oklahoma should not be subsidiary to another state (she took issue with the phrase “ancillary estate”). She went on to say that the “unpaid obligations” mentioned in the accounts were too vague, that there existed “unaccounted for” oil and gas properties in Oklahoma, and that the estate funds should be used to search for those “unaccounted for” assets. Finally, she claimed that she was entitled to a “widow’s allowance” for her maintenance during the ancillary probate proceedings from the estate funds that had recently become available.
After the hearing, the district court issued an Order Allowing Final Account and Distribution of the Estate. The district court believed that all of the estate assets had been sold, so it denied Becky’s Application for a Widow’s Allowance. Becky then appealed, asserting that the trial court erred: (1) in authorizing the transfer of assets to the domiciliary estate, (2) denying her request to use mineral sale proceeds to search for additional Oklahoma assets, and (3) denying her request for a spousal allowance.
In this post, we will examine the widow’s allowance, or spousal allowance, issue in Powers and the arguments made in the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals. The “unaccounted for” assets issue that arose in this case will be covered in a separate, future post.
Spousal Allowance
In Oklahoma, spousal or family allowances are fixed by statute. If the district court finds that the homestead and personal property allowed to the family by 58 O.S. §§ 311-312 are not sufficient to support the surviving spouse or children, and there is other estate property of the decedent, then, under 58 O.S. § 314, the district court may choose to make an allowance for the maintenance of the family during the progress of the settlement of the estate, before funds are available for final distribution, to support the everyday necessities of the family.
Most states have provisions like this to protect families during probate proceedings and to provide a sense of lifestyle normalcy to the grieving parties. Under Oklahoma probate law, all allowance requests are subject to the district court’s discretion, meaning that no allowances are required to be granted. It is also worth noting that a district court’s denial of an allowance request is subject to a highly deferential standard of review on appeal. Oklahoma courts place a high value on the “legislative intent” of statutes. If a judge feels that the reasoning behind a specific allowance request does not align with the spirit of the law, that allowance request most likely will be denied.
In Powers, Becky asked for an allowance only at the end of the ancillary probate proceedings in Oklahoma, more than three (3) years after the issuance of the mandate in the prior appeal in the case. She claimed that she delayed requesting an allowance because funds had only recently become available for such an allowance due to the estate finally becoming solvent. If the estate is solvent, it means there are enough funds in the estate to cover the debts of the decedent and distribute extra funds to heirs and devisees. An insolvent estate does not have enough funds to cover the decedent’s debts. Before the Oklahoma estate assets were sold, the estate was insolvent. Becky claimed the district court could offer her an allowance out of the newly distributable funds if those funds were not all transferred to the domiciliary estate.
Sydney, as Administrator, responded to Becky’s claim for a spousal allowance by citing 58 O.S. § 314: “the court may in its discretion make such reasonable allowance out of the estate as shall be necessary for the maintenance of the family, according to their circumstances during the progress of the settlement of the estate, which, in case of an insolvent estate, must not be longer than one (1) year after granting letters testamentary, or of administration.” Sydney pointed out that the statute does not prohibit spousal allowances from insolvent estates. She believed Becky’s delayed request was explicitly intended to dodge creditors and not, in fact, for her maintenance during the ancillary probate proceedings in Oklahoma, as Becky had not requested an allowance in court since the beginning of the ancillary probate proceedings in 2012. Since Sydney’s appointment as Personal Representative in the ancillary probate proceedings happened in February 2015, she had been Personal Representative longer than the one-year allowance period provided for in the section of the allowance statute regarding insolvent estates. According to Sydney, Becky asked for an allowance “five years too late”.
In addition, there was a pending application for a widow’s allowance in the domiciliary estate of Colorado, and the funds would have been available to her if the Colorado court approved her allowance application. The district court reasoned that if the Oklahoma estate assets were transferred to Colorado and Becky’s pending allowance application in Colorado was granted, Becky’s allowance would come from the same money it would have come from if her Oklahoma allowance request had been granted. Also, the transfer of the Oklahoma estate assets would consolidate the two separate state probate proceedings into a single state proceeding, and the ancillary probate could be closed. After evaluating these arguments, the District Court of Caddo County, Oklahoma felt denying the spouse’s allowance request was appropriate.
Court of Civil Appeals
When this case came before the Court of Civil Appeals, Becky argued, based on 58 O.S. §§ 314-315, that:
“The allowances provided by [these statutory sections] are exempt and must be paid prior to any other debts or expenses except funeral and last death expenses. Prior to the sale of the estate assets, the estate had no funds to provide the widow's allowance to [Spouse] under these provisions. [Spouse] was accordingly entitled to an allowance as soon as the estate had liquid assets to provide for it.”
It seemed to the Court of Civil Appeals that Becky was arguing that the spousal allowance was a mandatory part of probate proceedings. However, the plain language of 58 O.S. § 314 makes it clear that “the court may in its discretion” grant an allowance out of the estate (emphasis added). The Court of Civil Appeals cited Reed v. Charles Broadway Rouse, Inc., 1935 OK 1087, 50 P.2d 1097, a case in which a widow was denied an allowance, to support this conclusion. In Reed, the application for the allowance came three (3) years after letters of administration were granted. The Reed court said it was the “general rule” for a widow to make a “claim for an allowance promptly,” and after three years, it was “not an abuse of discretion [for the district court] to disallow” such a tardy allowance request.
Additionally, the Court of Civil Appeals maintained that the purpose of the widow’s allowance is to tend to the surviving spouse’s needs during the probate proceedings. The appellate court then noted that Becky only requested an allowance at the close of the ancillary probate in Oklahoma. The Court of Civil Appeals upheld the district court’s conclusion that awarding an allowance at such a late point in the ancillary probate would be inconsistent with the legislative intent of the allowance statute.
The Court of Civil Appeals also upheld the district court’s determination that an allowance was not necessary because it was reasonable to conclude that Becky was not a particularly credible witness, in light of the “lengthy delay” of her allowance request, among “other factors” potentially affecting her credibility. In Oklahoma, “[t]he emphasis of the judicial process is to discern and effectuate the decedent’s intent,” In re Estate of Speers, 2008 OK 16, ¶ 9, 179 P.3d 1265 (footnote omitted). Becky acted to undermine her husband’s will and benefit herself on multiple occasions. For example, when she opposed Sydney’s appointment to be Personal Representative, and when she initially took issue with the provision in the decedent’s will mandating payment of all decedent’s just debts when the debts to be paid in the Colorado probate proceeding remained unspecified in the Oklahoma ancillary probate proceeding. The Court of Civil Appeals found the basis of Becky’s delayed request and the believability of her assertions to be unconvincing, just as the district court did.
Finally, the Court of Civil Appeals concluded that since there was also a request for a spousal allowance pending in Colorado, the district court acted in its discretion in denying Becky’s allowance request. Denial would avoid the “judicial chaos” of multiple courts deliberating on the same matter and the possibility of granting “duplicative spousal allowances out of the same estate.”
Spousal or family allowances are meant to help families through a difficult time by making some of the estate’s funds available early in probate proceedings. In a lengthy case like Powers, where probate proceedings have been ongoing for years, it would be reasonably safe to assume that, if a surviving spouse truly needed assistance during the probate, they would request such an allowance much earlier in the proceedings. A request for a spousal allowance made at the close of probate proceedings will almost certainly be denied. The allowance is intended to provide for the maintenance of the family before assets are distributed, when the family is in the thick of dealing with creditors, insurance companies, and court proceedings (e.g., when the need for maintenance is most critical). One of the main takeaways of Powers is that if your family needs funds to survive through the probate proceedings, it is best to request an allowance as quickly as possible.
While messy, probate is necessary to fairly distribute property according to the provisions of a decedent’s will or the state’s intestacy statutes. And at the end of the day, families should want to honor their deceased loved one’s last wishes. Plainview Legal Group PLLC provides full-service estate planning, including will and trust formation, and represents clients in contested and uncontested probates across Oklahoma. If you need help initiating probate proceedings, creating an estate plan, or updating a will, call our office at (405) 310-0183 to schedule a free consultation.
