24th Jul 2012
The third post in this series looked at the question: what if several persons have equal priority to be appointed Administrator under Okla. Stat. tit. 58 § 122 and are not disqualified under Okla. Stat.tit. 58 § 126. The short answer: the Court has discretion in its appointment.
This post and the last post look at a couple of specific issues addressed in the statutes under this general rule: creditors competing for appointment (last post) and those of different blood relation competing for appointment (this post).
Regarding different blood relation, Okla. Stat. tit. 58 § 123 reads in full: “[o]f several persons claiming and equally entitled to administer, relatives of the whole blood must be preferred to those of the half blood.”
The first post in this series looked at Okla. Stat. tit. 58 § 122 and the basic order of priority for Administrators of estates of persons dying intestate (without a Will). Going down the list, it appears Okla. Stat. tit. 58 § 123 would apply only to brothers or sisters in the fourth priority spot or next of kin in the sixth priority spot.
The first place on the list is spouse, and a spouse is not a blood relative (except in rare circumstances – generally of distant relation). The second place is children. If a deceased man had 5 children through 5 different mothers, the children are half blood with respect to each other, but have the same blood relation with respect to the deceased man. The third place is father or mother. A person is either a blood parent of a deceased person or not – there is no half blood possibility.
The fourth place is siblings, the first and most likely place this statute would apply. If a deceased man had two brothers who were applying to be Administrator of his estate, the full-blooded brother would have priority over the half-blooded brother. That is, if one of the brothers had the same two blood parents as the deceased man but the other brother only had one of the same parents, the brother with the same two parents as the deceased man would have priority over the brother who only shared one parent with the deceased man.
Fifth place is grandchildren, which are the same logically as children, and the statute would not apply.
Sixth place is “next of kin” and the statute could apply. I have one full-blood brother and a step father. If my mother gave birth to another male child with my step father, my brother and I would then have a half-brother (sharing a mom but not a dad). I would be a full uncle to my full-blood brother’s kids but only a half-uncle to my half-blood brother’s kids. If I died intestate, and the children of my full-blood brother and the children of my half-blood brother were competing to be appointed Administrator of my estate, the law would favor the children of my full-blood brother, all things being equal. This is really just the next generation extension of the full-blood sibling versus half-blood sibling scenario set forth above.
Seventh place is creditors and eight place is any person legally competent, and the statute would not apply to either – unless they also fell into an earlier category such as next of kin.
So, in sum, it is good to know and understand this rule about blood relation, but it is also important to know its relatively limited scope.
If our office may be of assistance to you in these areas, do not hesitate to contact us at (580) 338-6503 or at firstname.lastname@example.org using any of our contact information in the profile. You can also visit www.fieldandhicks.com for more information.
This blog contains general information and the opinions of the author – not legal advice; you should seek the advice of competent counsel (attorney/lawyer) when considering any legal issues.