Hammond v. Rush

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a decedent’s stepson and cotrustee lacked standing to petition for probate or appointment as personal representative because he was not an intestate heir, had no property right or claim against the estate, and was not a fiduciary representing an interested person. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the probate proceeding for lack of standing.

Holdings

1. The petitioner lacked standing because, once the pour-over will could not be admitted, he had no property right in or claim against the intestate estate and was not an intestate heir.
2. The petitioner's potential compensation as personal representative did not establish standing because that financial interest would arise only after appointment and successful pursuit of the elder-abuse claim.
3. The petitioner was not a fiduciary representing an interested person because his fiduciary duties as cotrustee ran to the trust beneficiaries, not to the beneficiaries of the estate, and the trust was not an estate asset.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the decedent's stepson had standing under ORS 113.035 and ORS 111.005(19) to petition for probate and appointment as personal representative after the pour-over will could not be admitted.
2. Whether the petitioner's anticipated compensation as personal representative or fiduciary duties as cotrustee gave him a property right or claim against the estate sufficient to establish standing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded