Exemption for financial institutions with valid security interests. A. If any person, before the granting of letters testamentary or of administration, embezzles or alienates any of the monies, goods, chattel or effects of a decedent, the person is chargeable therewith, and liable to an action by the executor or administrator of the estate, for double the value of the property so embezzled or alienated, to be recovered for the benefit of the estate.
B. This section, however, shall not apply to any financial institution which has a valid security interest in the goods or chattel of the decedent and which has commenced or is about to commence repossession of the decedent’s goods and chattel after default. The financial institution shall use diligent efforts to notify the heirs and personal representative of the decedent, by certified mail return receipt requested, of the repossession. The notice to the heirs and personal representative shall contain the amount of the debt secured by the goods or chattel as well as the expenses reasonably incurred by the secured party in retaking, holding and preparing the collateral for disposition, in arranging for the sale, and, to the extent provided in the agreement and not prohibited by law, their reasonable attorneys’ fees and legal expenses. After receipt of the notice, the heirs and personal representative shall have twenty (20) days to redeem the goods or chattel by tendering to the secured party the full amount listed in the notice. If there are no heirs and personal representative, or if the notice to the heirs and personal representative by certified mail is returned undelivered, then the secured party may dispose of the repossessed goods or chattel as soon as practicable. R.L.1910, § 6324. Amended by Laws 2001, c. 220, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2021 · leading case:
Culbertson v. McCann, 664 P.2d 388 (Okla. 1983).
Culbertson v. McCann, 664 P.2d 388 (Okla. 1983).
· cites it 4× “1910 (now 58 O.S.1981 § 292) which provides that any person before the granting of letters of administration, who embezzles or alienates any of the property of the decedent, will be liable for double the amount of the property alienated.”
McGehee v. Arvest Trust Co., 2007 OK 68 (Okla. 2007).
· cites it 2× “According to McGehee her petition stated a prima facie case of embezzlement or alienation of property by the appellees within the meaning of 58 O.S.2001 § 292. 11 Appellees countered that the probate statutes authorize only the court-appointed fiduciary manager to bring an…”
Simons v. Brashears Transfer & Storage, 344 P.2d 1107 (Okla. 1959).
· cites it 2× “Thereafter the executrix, on behalf of the estate, filed a cross petition against defendant for double damages under 58 O.S.1951 § 292, claiming that prior to the granting of letters testamentary defendant had sold and converted that part of the furniture owned separately by…”
In re Est. of Taylor, 479 P.3d 476 (Kan. 2021).
“"); Okla. Stat. tit. 58, § 292 (A) ("If any person, before the granting of letters testamentary or of administration, embezzles or alienates any of the monies, goods, chattel or effects of a decedent, the person is chargeable therewith, and liable to an action by the executor or…”
Wasson v. Collett, 277 P.2d 996 (Okla. 1954).
· cites it 2× “1931 [58 O.S.1951 § 292]. Nichols & Shepard Co.”
In the Matter of the Est. of Kenworthy, 2015 OK CIV APP 64 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
“Kristine also alleged Lynne was liable for double the value of the property pursuant to 58 O.S. 2011 §292. Lynne admitted she was in possession of the bonds but denied that they were property of the estate.”
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.