- 10 -
giving." Additionally, Betty Aaron, decedent's accountant since
approximately 1984, testified that decedent had talked to her in
the summer of 1992 about transferring the annuities in question
to the annuitants at that time rather than waiting until her
death. Mr. Murphy and Ms. Aaron were not contingent owners of
any of the annuities. Lastly, even after the transfers in
question, decedent was left with over $973,000 in assets. Cf. In
re Estate of Rolater, 542 P.2d 219, 223 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975)
(involving “circumstances which discourage the image of a woman
capable of suddenly initiating a program aimed at divesting
herself of over 80 percent of her estate by giving it to her
brother”).
We are cognizant that some States have a flat prohibition
against attorneys in fact making gifts to themselves or to third
parties absent express written authorization. See Townsend v.
United States, 889 F. Supp. 369 (D. Neb. 1995); Fender v. Fender,
329 S.E.2d 430 (S.C. 1985). Oklahoma, however, has not adopted
such a rule. We believe that if the Oklahoma Supreme Court were
to rule on this issue, it would look for “clear, explicit, and
convincing” evidence of intent. Estate of Stinchcomb v.
Stinchcomb, supra at 30. In In re Estate of Rolater, supra at
222, when presented with an issue similar to that found here, the
Court of Appeals of Oklahoma found lacking any “hard evidence or
cogent circumstances” that the decedent intended for her attorney
in fact to make gifts. Those circumstances, however, are not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011