ESTATE OF GLOMSET
547 P.2d 951 (Okla. 1976)


PRIOR HISTORY: Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division No. 2. Appellee's Motion for Declaratory Judgment, finding her to be a pretermitted heir and thus authorized to share in the estate of her deceased father, was sustained by the District Court of Oklahoma County, Honorable Carl Traub, Judge. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals, Division No. 2, reversed and remanded. Appellee seeks certiorari.

PROCEDURAL: Appellee daughter petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's decision finding her to be a pretermitted heir and thus authorized to share in the estate of her deceased father.

FACTS:John and his wife, Margie executed joint and reciprocal wills leaving their estates to each other and to their son John Jr if they both should die in a common disaster John died first and his forty year old daughter, Carolyn sought a declaratory judgment that she was a pretermitted heir The trial court found that status as there was no evidence on the face of the will to disinherit Carolyn This appeal resulted

ISSUE: If there are no uncertainties on the face of a will, is extrinsic evidence admissible with respect to pretermitted heir status1?

RULE OF LAW: If there are not uncertainties on the face of a will, extrinsic evidence is not admissible with respect to pretermitted heir status

HOLDING: After the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, the Supreme Court, on certiorari, Barnes, J., held that parol evidence was inadmissible in the absence of uncertainties on the face of the will, and that summary judgment was therefore proper.

ANALYSIS: There was no dispute concerning the fact that the daughter was a daughter of the deceased. The court held that the only question for determination was whether or not deceased's omission of the daughter appeared to have been intentional. The court concluded that there were no uncertainties on the face of the will in this case, that the testator admittedly failed to mention the daughter, and also failed to indicate any reason for his failure to mention her. Therefore, the court held that the daughter was a pretermitted heir and entitled to inherit her proportionate share of her deceased father's estate. The court also held that appellant heir failed to set forth a compelling reason why the interpretation of Okla. Stat. tit. 84, § 132 should be changed at this time to permit introduction of extrinsic evidence to show the intent of the testator where no ambiguity appeared on the face of the will. Accordingly, the court granted the writ, vacated the appellate court's decision, and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Ruling The court granted the daughter's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decision, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding that the daughter was a pretermitted heir and entitled to share in the estate.