Oklahoma Court Case: Baxter v. Baxter

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CARL LEICESTER BAXTER, Deceased: MARY ETTA CLARK and HAROLD SHUCK, Appellants, versus JIMMY CARL BAXTER and CHARLENE SUE HOLDEN, Appellees.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION THREE 

1992 OK CIV APP 15; 827 P.2d 184

February 25, 1992, Filed 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.:
AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL:
Richard Beeby, Bert M. Grigg, Tulsa, Oklahoma, For Appellants.

Gregory Allen Gray, Tulsa, Oklahoma, For Appellees. 

JUDGES:
Hunter, JONES, HANSEN 

HUNTER, J. 
Carl Leicester Baxter (Testator) married Marybelle Baxter in 1954, and adopted her two children, the Appellees, in June, 1955. Testator and Marybelle later divorced. By the terms of the divorce decree, Testator relinquished all rights to the children and Marybelle was ordered to "adopt" them. Accordingly, Marybelle "adopted" Appellees in 1957, with their written consent.
Testator later married Ann Louise Baxter, who had a son by a previous marriage, Michael Charles Davis. In 1960, Testator executed his Last Will and Testament. Under the terms of the will, Testator bequeathed his entire estate to Ann, and in the event he and Ann both died in a common disaster, his estate was to pass to Michael. Testator expressly declared his intention to exclude any and all of his children, whether natural or adopted, and stated that should any child attempt to inherit under the will, that child should receive $ 1.00. The will nominated no executor and contained no residuary clause.
Ann died in 1982 and Testator died in 1988. Michael filed a petition to admit the will to probate, requesting that he be appointed as personal representative of the estate and that a determination of heirs be made. Testator's heirs at law were later determined to be Appellees, Michael, a half-sister - Mary Etta Clark (Appellant), and a half-brother, Harold Shuck (Appellant).
Both Appellants and Appellees objected to the appointment of Michael as personal representative of the estate. The will was admitted to probate in 1988, at which time the trial court found Michael was the sole heir under the terms of the will and appointed him personal representative of the estate. Both parties appealed and the appeals were consolidated. In Matter of Estate of Baxter, 798 P.2d 644 (Okl. App. 1990), Division One of the Court of Appeals specifically determined that: (1) Testator's bequest to Michael, conditioned upon Testator and Ann dying in a common disaster, failed upon Ann's death in 1982, (2) the trial court correctly determined that Testator evinced an unambiguous intent to disinherit his children, natural or adopted, and (3) the will stands as a validly executed instrument although all bequests under the terms of the will lapsed, because the instrument evinced Testator's intent to disinherit his natural or adopted children and to dispose of his property. However, because all bequests of the will failed, the Court of Appeals determined that the estate must pass by the laws of intestate succession, and reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings.