because husband’s IRA was not distributed in his will, he died “intestate” with respect to the IRA.
Cf. id. (describing IRA as “a contract with an institution that involves a third-party beneficiary
designation,” and “[u]pon the IRA owner’s death, . . . the beneficiary’s expectancy becomes an
interest that attaches to the proceeds of the IRA, and those proceeds pass directly to the beneficiary;
they do not pass through the estate”); In re Estate of Wellshear, 2006 OK CIV APP 90, ¶ 21, 142
P.3d 994, 998 (“We believe federal law intends for a custodian/administrator to rely on the
disposition scheme recognized by federal law, including beneficiary designations, in effecting a
disposition of an IRA upon the death of the owner.”). Because wife is arguing that she has the
right to certain property that should have been included in husband’s estate, she needed to pursue
this argument by waiving husband’s will and claiming her elective share of husband’s estate under
§ 319. If wife succeeded in this argument, she would be entitled to, at most, half of the IRA funds,
not the full amount she would recover as residuary beneficiary of husband’s will. See generally
M. Begleiter, Grim Fairy Tales: Studies of Wicked Stepmothers, Poisoned Apples, and the Elective
Share, 78 Alb. L. Rev. 521, 523 (2015) (explaining that “courts have for many years decided
whether particular nonprobate transfers should be subject to the elective share statute under the
heading of ‘fraud on the spousal share,’ ” and discussing and evaluating such cases).
¶ 22. Because wife took under husband’s will, however, she is now barred from seeking
her statutory share. As noted above, “[i]t is a familiar rule that one cannot take under a will and