Hammond v. Rush

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the decedent's stepson lacked standing to petition for probate or appointment as personal representative because he was not an intestate heir and the pour-over will was invalid. The court rejected his asserted financial interest in potential personal-representative compensation and his fiduciary relationship as cotrustee as bases for standing. It reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the probate proceeding.

Holdings

1. A stepson who is not an intestate heir and has no property right or claim against the decedent's estate is not an interested person under ORS 111.005(19) and therefore lacks standing under ORS 113.035 to petition for probate or appointment as personal representative.
2. The possibility of receiving compensation as a personal representative after appointment and successful pursuit of an elder-abuse claim does not establish the property interest or claim required for standing at the outset of the probate petition.
3. A cotrustee's fiduciary duty to trust beneficiaries does not make the cotrustee a fiduciary representing an interested person in the probate estate when the trust is 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 was determined not to be valid.
2. Whether the petitioner's anticipated compensation as personal representative gave him a sufficient property interest or claim against the estate to qualify as an interested person.
3. Whether the petitioner's fiduciary status as cotrustee made him a fiduciary representing an interested person under ORS 111.005(19)(c).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded