New England Merchants Nat. Bank v. McKinnon
| Decision Date | 13 July 1973 |
| Citation | 307 A.2d 225 |
| Parties | NEW ENGLAND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK v. Eleanor V. McKINNON, Executrix u/w/o Russell A. McKinnon. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Preti & Flaherty by David M. Cohen, Portland, for plaintiff.
Emmons & Emmons by David W. Emmons, Kennebunk, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
This appeal raises a knotty issue as to the sufficiency of a proof of claim against a decedent's estate filed in the Probate Court pursuant to 18 M.R.S.A. 2402.
Plaintiff, after having seasonably filed the proof, and after the Executrix had declined to honor it, filed a complaint in the Superior Court. A motion to dismiss the action was thereafter filed by the defendant. This motion was premised on the assertion that the proof of claim filed in the Probate Court was insufficient as a matter of law, both as to form and as to content. 1.
A Justice of the Superior Court, after hearing, granted the motion to dismiss after finding that the proof of claim was insufficient as a matter of law.
This appeal followed.
We sustain the appeal.
The proof of claim had attached thereto and made a part thereof, a contract of guaranty given to the plaintiff by the decedent guarantying payment of all liabilities, obligations and undertakings of the Harvard Development Corporation to sadi bank. The proof of claim further recited that as of the date of the death of the decedent the outstanding and unsatisfied indebtedness owed the bank by the Harvard Development Corporation was $101,710.92, and that 'no security for said claim was taken or exists and no credit is to be given in set off.' The entire agreement of guaranty between the plaintiff bank and the deceased was contained in the proof of claim. The guaranty is under seal and is dated September 7, 1965.
The undertakings of the deceased under the guaranty agreement are described in great detail. It is true there is nothing in the guaranty agreement describing what the liabilities of the Harvard Development Corporation are to the bank or the exact nature of the indebtedness incurred or to be incurred. The agreement does describe the guaranty as to payment in fulfillment
'. . . of all liabilities, obligations and undertakings of Harvard Development Corporation to said Bank, whether direct or indirect, absolute or contingent, due or to become due, now existing or hereafter arising or acquired, expressly including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, obligations upon notes whether as maker or indorser, upon acceptance, upon agreements relating to acceptances, upon obligations incident to the issuance of letters of credit, upon security agreements and upon guaranties of the liabilities and obligations of others.'
As the Justice below so well said in his opinion on which his decision to grant the motion to dismiss was based, the purpose of the provision of the statute requiring a proof of claim as a condition precedent to commencing action on the claim is to inform the fiduciary as to all pertinent facts relating to the claim and to enable the fiduciary to determine whether the claim should be admitted or contested.
In Eddy v. Starbird, Admr., 135 Me. 183, 183-184, 192 A. 702, 703 (1937), this Court said,
'The primary object of the legislation is to apprise the administrator of the nature, as well as the extent, of the claim, that, after opportunity for investigation, he may arrange to pay, or to contest it.' (Emphasis supplied.)
In Holmes v. Fraser, Exec., 140 Me. 81, 83, 34 A.2d 76 (1943) this Court declared that a substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient. It was also there pointed out the proof of claim should 'distinguish with reasonable certainty the claim from all other similar claims and give such information concerning the nature and amount of the demand as will enable the representative to act intelligently in approving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ace Ambulance Service, Inc. v. City of Augusta
...from 2A Moore, § 12.08) (emphasis in the original). 3 See also Cohen v. Bowdoin, Me., 288 A.2d 106 (1972); New England Merchants National Bank v. McKinnon, Me., 307 A.2d 225 (1973); Field, McKusick and Wroth, Maine Civil Practice, Vol. I, § Here, as in Richards, the almost obvious issues co......
-
Vincent v. Estate of Simard
...1979, as requiring substantial, not strict, compliance with the notice requirements for claims.3 New England Merchs. Nat'l Bank v. McKinnon, 307 A.2d 225, 227 (Me.1973); Holmes v. Fraser, 140 Me. 81, 83, 34 A.2d 76, 76-77 (1943). In McKinnon, we explained that the statutory requirements are......