Okla. Stat. » Title 58 — PROBATE PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 58, § 122 (2026)

Persons entitled to letters of administration

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Administration of the estate of a person dying intestate must be granted to some one or more of the persons hereinafter mentioned, and they are respectively entitled thereto in the following order: 1. The surviving husband or wife, or some competent person whom he or she may request to have appointed. 2. The children. 3. The father or mother. 4. The brothers or sisters. 5. The grandchildren. 6. The next of kin entitled to share in the distribution of the estate. 7. The creditors. 8. Any person legally competent.

If the decedent was a member of a partnership at the time of his decease, the surviving partner must in no case be appointed administrator of his estate. R.L.1910, § 6245; Laws 1961, p. 440, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home, 2005 OK 73 (Okla. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home, 2005 OK 73 (Okla. 2005). · cites it 2× “2001, § 213, nor is it eligible to petition for letters in its own right under 58 O.S.2001, § 122. A third party with no connection to the deceased is not an interested party, for purposes of contesting the appointment of an administrator of a deceased’s estate.”
Murg v. Barnsdall Nursing Home, 2005 OK 74 (Okla. 2005). · cites it 2× “2001, § 213, nor is it eligible to petition for letters in its own right under 58 O.S.2001, § 122. A third party with no connection to the deceased is not an interested party, for purposes of contesting the appointment of an administrator of a deceased’s estate.”
Wyche v. Wyche, 365 P.2d 993 (Okla. 1961). · cites it 2× “58 O.S.1951 § 122 provides, inter alia, as follows: “Administration of the estate of a person dying intestate must be granted to some one or more of the persons hereinafter mentioned, and they are respectively entitled thereto in the following order: 1.”
Matter of Est. of Rogers, 569 P.2d 536 (Okla. Civ. App. 1977). “58 O.S.1971, § 122. REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
Sparks v. Steele, 501 P.2d 1106 (Okla. 1972). “58 O.S.1971 § 122 provides: “Administration of the estate of a person dying intestate must be granted to some one or more of the persons hereinafter mentioned, and they are respectively entitled thereto in the following order : “1.”
In Re the Est. of Marriott, 515 P.2d 571 (Okla. 1973). “a child born in wedlock being legitimate; the prima facie evidence of the official birth certificate; and the lack of sufficient evidence before the court to show that contestant was not legitimate; contestant was the legitimate son of decedent and was entitled to be appointed…”
In the Matter of the Est. of Landing, 2023 OK 117 (Okla. 2023). · cites it 8× “" 58 O.S. § 122. ¶14 The trial court has no discretion to ignore this ordered list of preferred candidates.”
In Re Enochs' Estates, 322 P.2d 197 (Okla. 1958). “Enochs for himself and as guardian for Robert Leon Enochs waived and relinquished any rights they may have had? The statutes applicable to the controversy involved in this case are 58 O.”
Hackney v. Newman Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 621 F.2d 1069 (10th Cir. 1980). “There was a vacancy in the office of administratrix of the estate; plaintiff is a statutorily preferred replacement, Okla. Stat.Ann. tit. 58, § 122 (West 1965), and was the only one capable of serving after Rea’s resignation.”
Watson v. Watson, 135 P.3d 853 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Despite this determination and Jessica’s minority, the trial court declined to appoint Sylvia as personal representative of Donovan Myrl Watson’s estate as provided in 58 O.S.2001 § 122. Jessica appeals the trial court’s determination that Sylvia was an heir, and Sylvia…”
Matter of Est. of Franz, 625 P.2d 1276 (Okla. Civ. App. 1979). “Between various classes of individuals, who is “best entitled” to letters of adminis *1278 tration is determined by 58 O.S.1971, § 122, which sets priorities as follows: Administration of the estate of a person dying intestate must be granted to some one or more of the persons…”
Matter of Est. of Scott, 604 P.2d 846 (Okla. 1979). · cites it 2× “*848 This rule is subject, however, to the mandate of statutory preference of order of the parties entitled to administer a decedent’s estate under 58 O.S.1971 § 122, and only where the contestants for the position of administrator share an equal footing in the statutory rank of…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 58, § 122(1): 1 case
In the Matter of the Est. of Landing, 2023 OK 117 (Okla. 2023). “" 58 O.S. § 122. ¶14 The trial court has no discretion to ignore this ordered list of preferred candidates.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 58, § 122(2): 2 cases
In the Matter of the Est. of Landing, 2023 OK 117 (Okla. 2023). “" 58 O.S. § 122. ¶14 The trial court has no discretion to ignore this ordered list of preferred candidates.”
Watson v. Watson, 135 P.3d 853 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006). “Despite this determination and Jessica’s minority, the trial court declined to appoint Sylvia as personal representative of Donovan Myrl Watson’s estate as provided in 58 O.S.2001 § 122. Jessica appeals the trial court’s determination that Sylvia was an heir, and Sylvia…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.