Background
Renee Towon, the decedent’s life partner, petitioned to probate a purported 2022 will and was appointed personal representative. After the decedent’s daughter contested that will, Towon amended her response to admit allegations that the will was fraudulent and that the decedent’s signature had been forged, possibly by Towon or her daughter. The probate court invalidated the 2022 will and removed Towon as personal representative.
In her final accounting, Towon requested $16,695 in attorney fees, a statutory personal-representative fee, and approval of a cleaning expense connected with an estate sale. The probate court reduced the attorney-fee award to $4,659.30, denied the personal-representative fee, and declined to approve the cleaning expense because the supporting information was insufficient. Towon appealed those rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed because Towon had not preserved any of her appellate arguments. Although the probate court announced that it would consider the final accounting and the objections, Towon did not object to that procedure or argue that ORS 116.183(2)(b) required an additional opportunity to submit materials supporting the requested attorney fees.
After announcing its rulings, the probate court expressly invited the parties to identify any missed issues. Towon used that opportunity to clarify the reason for denial of the cleaning expense but did not raise her statutory or due-process objections concerning the attorney fees, personal-representative fee, or cleaning expense. The Court of Appeals also declined plain-error review because Towon first requested it in her reply brief rather than her opening brief. The court therefore did not decide the merits of the alleged statutory or constitutional errors.
Key Takeaways
- A party must object when the trial court announces a procedure believed to violate a statutory or constitutional right, particularly when the court provides an opportunity to raise concerns.
- An objection may still be required after an oral ruling when the party has a meaningful opportunity to alert the court and permit correction of the alleged error.
- A request for plain-error review made for the first time in a reply brief is too late.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that preservation rules apply fully in probate proceedings. Even potentially significant claims about statutory attorney-fee procedures, compensation of a former personal representative, and estate expenses may go unreviewed if counsel does not present them to the probate court at the available opportunity.
The opinion also illustrates the importance of requesting plain-error review—and explaining why the appellate court should exercise that discretion—in the opening brief. Because the appeal was resolved on preservation grounds, the decision does not establish whether the probate court’s underlying fee and expense rulings were legally correct.