Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentprobatetrustwillmotion for summary judgment
jurisdictionappealtrialprobatetrustwill

Related Cases

Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84, 390 U.S.App.D.C. 352
View Case »
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 137 S.Ct. 1730, 198 L.Ed.2d 273, 85 USLW 4353, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5750, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5747, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 695
View Case »
Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U.S. 198, 76 S.Ct. 273, 100 L.Ed. 199
View Case »
Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U.S. 888, 108 S.Ct. 2218, 100 L.Ed.2d 896, 56 USLW 4648
View Case »
Mark v. Mark, 145 Ohio St. 301, 61 N.E.2d 595, 160 A.L.R. 608, 30 O.O. 534
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

West v. White, 307 Or. 296, 766 P.2d 383

Facts

Priscilla Crowell White filed a petition to admit the will of Lloyd S. West, who was domiciled in Massachusetts, to probate in Oregon, claiming that he left property in Lane County. Contestants Christopher J. West and Jason E. Clark contested the will, arguing that the will could only be admitted to probate in Oregon if a certified copy was filed from the jurisdiction where the testator died, and that there was no property in Oregon to probate. The Circuit Court initially admitted the will but later set aside that order after the contestants filed a motion for summary judgment.

Priscilla Crowell White filed a petition with the Circuit Court for Lane County requesting that the last will and testament of Lloyd S. West dated in 1980 and a codicil thereto be admitted to probate. The petition alleged that the testator, who was domiciled at Hingham, Massachusetts, died in that state leaving property located in Lane County, Oregon. The Circuit Court for Lane County admitted the will and codicil to probate and appointed White the testator's personal representative.

Issue

Whether the will of a testator who died domiciled outside of Oregon can be admitted to probate in Oregon when there is no property located in Oregon to probate.

Whether the will of a testator who died domiciled outside of Oregon can be admitted to probate in Oregon when there is no property located in Oregon to probate.

Rule

A will of a testator who died domiciled outside of Oregon may only be admitted to probate in this state if there is property located in Oregon upon which jurisdiction may be founded.

A will of a testator who died domiciled outside of Oregon may only be admitted to probate in this state if there is property located in Oregon upon which jurisdiction may be founded.

Analysis

The court analyzed the situs of the promissory note secured by a trust deed on real property in Oregon and concluded that the note had its situs in Massachusetts, the domicile of the testator. The court emphasized that the existence of property in Oregon is a prerequisite for the jurisdiction of Oregon's probate courts, and since the promissory note was personal property, it was governed by the law of the testator's domicile.

The court analyzed the situs of the promissory note secured by a trust deed on real property in Oregon and concluded that the note had its situs in Massachusetts, the domicile of the testator. The court emphasized that the existence of property in Oregon is a prerequisite for the jurisdiction of Oregon's probate courts, and since the promissory note was personal property, it was governed by the law of the testator's domicile.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, concluding that there was no property in Oregon to probate, and thus the will could not be admitted to probate in Oregon.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, concluding that there was no property in Oregon to probate, and thus the will could not be admitted to probate.

Who won?

The contestants, Christopher J. West and Jason E. Clark, prevailed because the court found that the promissory note did not constitute property in Oregon, which was necessary for the probate of the will.

The contestants, Christopher J. West and Jason E. Clark, prevailed because the court found that the promissory note did not constitute property in Oregon, which was necessary for the probate of the will.

You must be