The Oklahoma Bar Journal November 2024

the statute of limitations set out by 58 O.S. §67, and there was no recourse for the appellant, enforc ing §67 no matter the methods used to discover paternity. 23 CONCLUSION The pretermitted heir issue has been present since the inception of wills. Oklahoma adopted the applicable statutes from 1910. The starting point is determined if the will from its four corners can be said to omit the heir. The issue of how the heir was discovered is not controlling. Once the probate court has determined heirs and entered the final decree, the statute of limitations of 30 days will control whether a claim can be heard. 24 The pretermitted heir can exist in a variety of forms, from adopted children to those born out of wed lock. As with most subjects of law, the subject of pretermitted heirs has had to grapple with chang ing technology and how people learn information. The courts in this instance have made one thing abundantly clear, however. No mat ter what the method, medium or basis of a claim made by a preter mitted heir, if it does not meet the statute of limitations, it is barred. The omission must be intentional and determined from the will.

from the OU College of Law. He is a member of the Payne County Bar Association and the OBA, an American Bar Foundation Fellow and a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel. ENDNOTES 1. The author thanks Andy Frels, a second year law student at the TU College of Law, for his assistance in research, editing and analysis related to this article. 2. “Pretermitted Heir,” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed., 1990). 3. R. Robert Huff, Oklahoma Probate Law and Practice with Forms , 84-87 (3d ed., 1995); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §132 (West, 2013). 4. Welch v. Crow , 2009 OK 20, 206 P.3d 599; Benjamin v. Butler (In re: Estate of Jackson) , 2008 OK 83, 194 P.3d 1269. 5. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §132 (West, 2013); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §131 (West, 2013). 6. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §151 (West, 2013); Dunnett v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., 1938 OK 608, 184 Okla. 82, 85 P.2d 281. 7. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §132 (West, 2013). 8. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 58, §67 (West, 2013). 9. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 58, §723 (West, 2013). 10. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §1031 (West, 2013). 11. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, §7505-6.5 (West, 2013). 12. Id . 13. Hooper v. Clinkingbeard (In re: Estate of Flowers), 1993 OK 19, 848 P.2d 1146. 14. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §215 (West, 2013). 15. Mark v. Dorn (In re: Dorn) , 1989 OK CIV APP 49, 787 P.2d 1291. 16. Crump v. Freeman (In re: Estate of Crump), 1980 OK 80, 614 P.2d 1096. 17. Id . 18. Hooper v. Clinkingbeard (In re: Estate of Flowers ), 1993 OK 19, 848 P.2d 1146; Crump v. Freeman (In re Estate of Crump) , 1980 OK 80, 614 P.2d 1096; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, §132 (West, 2013). 19. Crump v. Freeman (In re: Estate of Crump) , 1980 OK 80, 614 P.2d 1096. 20. Id . 21. Felts v. Massey (In re: Estate of Georges) , 2023 OK 123.

22. Id . 23. Id . 24. Id .

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Hal Wm. Ellis practices at the law firm of Ellis & Ellis in the areas of business organizations, tax-exempt organizations,

trusts, estates, probate and tax planning. He received his BBA with a concentration in accounting and MBA degrees from the University of Central Oklahoma and J.D.

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

NOVEMBER 2024 | 49

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL