## Facts

- John Larson Glomset, Sr. and his wife, Margie V. Glomset, executed joint and reciprocal wills on October 16, 1972.
- Each will left all property to the surviving spouse; if both spouses died in a “common disaster,” the estate would pass to their son, John Larson Glomset, Jr.
- John Sr. died on October 15, 1973; his will was admitted to probate on November 9, 1973, with the daughter’s claimed rights reserved.
- Carolyn Gay Ghan, John Sr.’s adult daughter, was not named, mentioned, or provided for anywhere in the will.
- Margie, as executrix, asserted the omission was intentional and sought to introduce evidence of estrangement between John Sr. and Ghan to show deliberate disinheritance.
- The trial court excluded the proffered extrinsic evidence, found no intent to disinherit appearing from the will itself, and declared Ghan a pretermitted heir entitled to an intestate share under 84 O.S. § 132.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded; the Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether an adult child omitted from a parent’s will qualifies as a pretermitted heir under 84 O.S. § 132 when the will does not mention the child or express an intent to disinherit.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence of the testator’s relationship with an omitted child is admissible to prove intentional disinheritance when the will is unambiguous on its face.

## Decision

- Certiorari was granted; the Court of Appeals’ decision was vacated; the district court’s judgment was affirmed.
- The court held that, absent facial ambiguity, testamentary intent is determined from the four corners of the will and extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to establish intentional disinheritance.
- Because the will omitted Ghan entirely and contained no express or apparent intent to disinherit her, she was a pretermitted heir entitled to take the same share she would receive if the decedent had died intestate.

## Legal Principles

- When a will is unambiguous, the testator’s intent must be ascertained from the will’s text; extrinsic evidence is inadmissible unless an ambiguity appears on the face of the instrument.
- Silence regarding a child, without textual language showing an intent to disinherit, does not create an ambiguity that permits resort to extrinsic evidence.
- Under 84 O.S. § 132, a child omitted from a will is entitled to an intestate share when the omission appears unintentional from the face of the will.
- Once extrinsic evidence is excluded as a matter of law and the will’s omission is undisputed, the pretermitted-heir determination may be resolved without further factual development.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that an omitted adult child was a pretermitted heir under 84 O.S. § 132 because the will did not mention her or show an intent to disinherit, and the court refused to admit extrinsic evidence of estrangement where the will was unambiguous.


In re Estate of Glomset, 547 P.2d 951 (Okla. 1976)