STRATTON v. STEPHENS
This text of 2021 OK CIV APP 49 (STRATTON v. STEPHENS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STRATTON v. STEPHENS
2021 OK CIV APP 49
Case Number: 118958
Decided: 10/29/2021
Mandate Issued: 12/01/2021
DIVISION I
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I
Cite as: 2021 OK CIV APP 49, __ P.3d __
HILDA STRATTON, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
JUDITH KAY STEPHENS and MARGARET HELEN MITCHELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES OF THE JC HILLARD WILLIAMS AND HELEN MARIE WILLIAMS REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED MAY 8, 2007, Defendants/Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
LEFLORE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
HONORABLE JONATHAN SULLIVAN, TRIAL JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Nicholas E. Grant, LAWSON & GRANT, P.C., Spiro, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Roy Gean, III, GEAN LAW FIRM, Fort Smith, Arkansas, for Defendants/Appellees.
¶1 The issue presented for review is whether a revocable trust, created jointly by a husband and wife, can be amended after one of the trustors passes away. JC Hillard Williams ("husband") and Helen Marie Williams ("wife") created the JC Hillard Williams and Helen Marie Williams Revocable Trust ("Trust"). Husband and wife had nine children ("beneficiaries") who were listed in the Trust. Upon the death of the last Trustor, each of the nine beneficiaries would receive an equal share of the Trust Estate. Husband passed away and wife subsequently executed three amendments to the Trust. The Plaintiff/Appellant, Hilda Stratton, was included as one of the nine beneficiaries in the Trust but omitted as a beneficiary in the second and third amendments to the Trust. After wife passed away, Appellant filed a Petition seeking a declaratory judgment determining that the amendments to the Trust were ineffective and invalid. Appellant contended that once husband passed away, the Trust became irrevocable and could no longer be amended. The trial court held that the amendments were effective because there was no express language in the Trust making it irrevocable. We find that the Trust was a revocable trust during the life of either or both Trustors and that wife had the authority to amend the Trust. The decision of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed.
BACKGROUND
¶2 The parties agreed to present stipulated facts and memorandums of law to the trial court in lieu of an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, all facts are undisputed. On May 8, 2007, husband and wife created the Trust and listed their nine children as beneficiaries. Husband and wife were the Trustors of the Trust but wife was the sole Trustee. The Trust included Appellant as one of the nine beneficiaries and upon the death of the last Trustor, Appellant was entitled to 1/9th of the Trust Estate. Husband passed away during June, 2007. Wife amended the Trust on three occasions during 2011, 2012 and 2015. Wife's Second Amendment to the Trust included the following provision:
The balance of the Trust Estate shall be distributed equally to my children who survive me, except Hilda Jane Stratton. They are Bobby Joe Williams, Jimmy Don Williams, Judith Kay Stephens, James Hillard Williams, Tony Marshall Williams, Margaret Helen Mitchell, Ronald Wayne Williams and Ricky Don Williams. I have intentionally omitted Hilda Jane Stratton. I do not want her to inherit or have any part of the Trust Estate.
Wife's 2015 Amendment to the Trust included the following provision:
It is the expressed intent of the aforesaid Trustor and Trustee, Helen Marie Williams, to disinherit Hilda Jane Stratton and it is the direction that none of the trust assets of property shall be distributed to her or to her lineal descendants.
¶3 Wife expressed her intent to disinherit Appellant in the Second Amendment and the 2015 Amendment to the Trust. Wife passed away during May, 2018. Appellant subsequently filed her Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Accounting of Trust Assets. After submission of stipulated facts and memorandums of law to the trial court, the court ruled against Appellant and determined that the amendments to the Trust were valid. Appellant timely commenced this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4 The subject of trusts is one of equitable cognizance. Paul v. Arvidson, 2005 OK CIV APP 85, ¶ 2, 123 P.3d 808, 809. Matters of equitable cognizance are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Missouri, Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Dist. Court, 1956 OK 9, ¶ 19, 294 P.2d 579, 583. "An abused judicial discretion is manifested when discretion is exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence." Revolution Resources v. Annecy, 2020 OK 97, ¶ 12, 477 P.3d 1133, 1140 (citation omitted).
¶5 Interpretation of the language of a trust instrument presents a question of law for the court. Matter of Home-Stake Production Co., Etc., 1979 OK 81, ¶ 8, 598 P.2d 1193, 1196 (citations omitted). Where "there is no ambiguity and the language of a declaration of trust is clear and plainly susceptible of only one construction, the plain provisions of the trust instrument must determine its construction." Id. at 1196 (citation omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Chandler v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2017 OK CIV APP 47, ¶26, 419 P.3d 298, 305. De novo review involves a plenary, independent, and non-deferential review of a trial court's legal rulings. Smith v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 OK CIV APP 42, ¶8, 325 P.3d 26, 29.
ANALYSIS
¶6 Appellant's Brief in Chief includes one proposition of error: i.e., that the trial court erred when it held that wife had the authority to amend the Trust after husband passed away.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2021 OK CIV APP 49, 503 P.3d 1221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stratton-v-stephens-oklacivapp-2021.