Oklahoma Supreme Court: Sufficient Evidence Of Survivorship In Simultaneous Death Case

On March 9, 2022, the Oklahoma Supreme Court docket issued the mandate in Pilz v. Bond, an feeling affirming that simultaneous dying did not arise as between a partner and spouse, as a result pinpointing the beneficiaries of the estate based upon survivorship provisions in decedent’s will.

The Facts of Pilz v. Bond

Leslie Cates (Mrs. Cates) executed her Will naming Mark Pilz as a beneficiary only in the celebration that Mrs. Cates and Gerald Richey Cates (Mr. Cates) really should die at the same time.

The Will offers that “[i]f my Husband and I really should die simultaneously as outlined herein or my Spouse predeceases me, then I give, devise, and bequeath all my house, other than as otherwise bequeathed in this Will, to [Mr. Pilz].” The Will defines a simultaneous dying as developing “if there is no enough evidence to create that we died other than at the same time.” As summarized by the Court docket:

Mr. Cates shot and killed Mrs. Cates during the early early morning hrs of January 25, 2018. Mrs. Cates sustained numerous gunshot wounds, such as a single to the head. Mr. Cates subsequently dedicated suicide by taking pictures himself in the head. Prior to accomplishing so, Mr. Cates telephoned Mr. Pilz, a longtime pal of Mrs. Cates, and educated him that he experienced shot and killed Mrs. Cates, that he “may do the same” to himself, and that Mr. Pilz must phone 911.

The mobile phone call to Mr. Pilz was created at 6:24 a.m., and the law enforcement arrived at Mr. and Mrs. Cates’ residence at approximately 6:35 a.m. Nonetheless, no entry was manufactured into the home until eventually a specific-operations crew forcefully entered at 9:29 a.m., at which time Mr. and Mrs. Cates have been discovered dead in their bedroom. No shots ended up fired following the law enforcement arrived, and it is undisputed Mr. Cates shot himself someday just after his telephone phone to Mr. Pilz and just before the time the law enforcement arrived.

Austin and Lindsey Bond are Mrs. Cates’ little ones from a previous relationship.  Mr. Bond submitted a petition seeking appointment as interim and distinctive administrator, and asserted that he and Ms. Bond were being the only heirs of Mrs. Cates.

A demo was held on no matter if there was a simultaneous dying. A forensic pathologist testified that it was remarkably not likely that Mr. Cates died to start with, and that there was a 90% chance that Mrs. Cates died 1st.

The demo court determined that Mr. and Mrs. Cates did not die concurrently, and that Mr. Pilz was therefore not a beneficiary of Mrs. Cates’ estate.

Mr. Pilz moved for a new trial, which was denied.  Mr. Pilz then appealed.

What Is Simultaneous Death Under Oklahoma Law?

Area 1001 of the Uniform Simultaneous Demise Act (the Act), 58 O.S. 2011 §§ 1001-1008, provides as follows:

In which the title to home or the devolution thereof depends upon precedence of demise of two or more persons and there is no adequate evidence to create that the individuals have died otherwise than simultaneously, the residence of every person shall be disposed of as if he experienced survived, other than as supplied if not in this act.

Many people place survivorship provisions in their wills, demanding a beneficiary to endure them by a sure total of time in buy to inherit from their estate.  In this article, the will demanded a simultaneous death for Mr. Pilz to inherit below Mrs. Cates’ will, or that Mr. Cates predeceased Mrs. Cates.

How Do You Show Survivorship Beneath Oklahoma Regulation?

Oklahoma law necessitates “sufficient evidence” to establish that the folks died normally than concurrently.  “[A] preponderance of the proof is equivalent to the ‘sufficient evidence’ of survivorship referred to in the [Oklahoma Simultaneous Death] Act.” In re Estates of Perry, 2001 Ok CIV App 136, ¶ 5, 40 P.3d 492, cert. denied (citations omitted). Therefore, “parties seeking to stay away from the implications of the Act should demonstrate that the decedents died ‘otherwise than simultaneously’ by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. ¶ 6 (footnote omitted). The Perry Court adopted the regulations from other jurisdictions that

if there is any enough evidence that possibly occasion survived the other, even when the deaths take place at significantly the exact time, the [Act] is inapplicable and the concern of survivorship ought to be identified as any other simple fact. . . . [C]ourts have rejected promises that deaths which come about substantially or around at the exact same time are simultaneous below the Act. Survivorship may well be demonstrated by direct or circumstantial evidence and the challenge is one of reality for the trial court’s determination. The demo court’s choice on survivorship is a locating of simple fact. To keep away from the implications of the Act, it is essential to show only that 1 party survived the other by at minimum just one second.

Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis included) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted).

Qualified Clinical Testimony Is Not Required To Confirm Survivorship Below Oklahoma Legislation

Skilled health-related witness testimony is not needed to establish survivorship beneath Oklahoma regulation.  Lay testimony might offer adequate proof of survivorship under the Oklahoma Uniform Simultaneous Death Act.

Here, Appellees did current specialist testimony as to survivorship, presenting in explicit detail set forth at length in the Oklahoma Supreme Courtroom opinion how the deaths happened.

In addition, Mr. Pilz testified at demo that during the get in touch with Mr. Cates stated to him, “I just shot [Mrs. Cates]. I shot her in the head. She’s dead.” Mr. Pilz testified that Mr. Cates further more stated: “She stole $7,000 of my dollars and acquired [her daughter] a vehicle. When I objected, she laughed at me. I set an stop to that. I may perhaps do the identical. Simply call 911.”

The Court stated:

In addition, as Mr. Pilz acknowledges in his appellate brief, a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Cates instructed the police that she heard a loud bang only a number of minutes just before the officers arrived. No further shots were being listened to. Hence, according to the undisputed timeline of gatherings, Mr. Cates, who fired the shot into Mrs. Cates’ head at some issue in time prior to the 6:24 a.m. mobile phone connect with, shot himself only a several minutes prior to 6:35 a.m. While some evidence was released that it was inside of the realm of the “possible” that Mrs. Cates could have survived for “more than a few to four minutes” following she was shot in the head, no proof was offered that Mrs. Cates could have survived her injuries until eventually a handful of minutes before 6:35 a.m., even assuming the shot to her head transpired promptly in advance of the 6:24 a.m. cell phone connect with. In addition, even assuming arguendo that this kind of a probability is supported by some evidence, the trial court’s opposite resolve that Mr. and Mrs. Cates died or else than concurrently is supported by the preponderance of the proof introduced at trial.

Hence, the Oklahoma Supreme Courtroom, based on the review of the document, concluded the trial court’s resolve that adequate evidence was introduced that Mr. and Mrs. Cates did not die concurrently — i.e., that they died or else than simultaneously by a preponderance of the evidence – was not evidently opposite to the fat of the proof.