In the Matter of the Estate of Leonard P. Clark, Deceased.
Robert B. HARRINGTON, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard P. Clark; Julie Clark Downie; and Leslie Clark Evans, Respondents. Dalton HOBBS; Mitchell Hobbs; and Dalton Hobbs, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Thelma Priscilla Clark, Appellants,
and Submitted February 24, 2016.
County Circuit Court C100199PE; Andrew Erwin, Judge.
Zachariah H. Allen argued the cause for appellants. On the
briefs were Dean N. Alterman, Courtney C. Dippel, and Folawn
Alterman & Richardson LLP.
W. Sondag argued the cause for respondent Robert B.
Harrington. With him on the brief was Lane Powell PC.
L. Campbell argued the cause for respondents Julie Clark
Downie and Leslie Clark Evans. On the brief were John F.
Purcell and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP.
Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Shorr,
as personal representative for his mother's estate,
appeals from a judgment of final distribution of the estate
of his step-father, contending that the probate court erred
in declining to address a request for partial distribution
that had been filed by the mother during her lifetime, before
entering the judgment of final distribution.
trial court did not err in addressing the petition for
partial distribution, because the granting of a petition for
partial distribution is within the discretion of the probate
court, and there has been no showing that the probate court
abused its discretion in declining to resolve the petition.
Additionally, the petition for final distribution superseded
the petition for partial distribution.
Hobbs, as personal representative for his mother Thelma's
estate (Dalton), appeals from a judgment of final
distribution of the estate of his step-father, Leonard Clark
(the decedent). Respondents Downie and Evans are the
decedent's daughters, and respondent Harrington is the
personal representative of the decedent's estate. Dalton
contends that the probate court erred in declining to address
a request for partial distribution that had been filed by
Thelma during her lifetime, before entering the judgment of
final distribution. In reviewing the probate court's
judgment, we are bound by the court's factual findings in
the record if there is evidence to support them, and we
review legal questions for errors of law. ORS 111.105(2)
("Appeals from a circuit court sitting in probate shall
be taken to the Court of Appeals in the manner provided by
law for appeals from the circuit court."); Bigsby v.
Vogel. 248 Or.App. 423, 425, 273 P.3d 284
(2012). We conclude that the court did not err and
facts on which the probate court based its judgment are
primarily procedural and are not disputed. The decedent's
will created two revocable trusts upon his death. The first
trust, Thelma's Trust, was exclusively for the benefit of
Thelma, his surviving spouse. Thelma's Trust was to be
funded after the decedent's death. The will directed the
greater portion of the decedent's estate to Thelma's
Trust. All of the income from Thelma's Trust was to be
paid to Thelma at least annually. The trust permitted Thelma