Alperstein By and Through Alperstein v. Sherwood Intern., Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87CA1287,87CA1287 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Arnold ALPERSTEIN, deceased, By and Through Rita I. ALPERSTEIN, Personal Representative of the Estate of Arnold Alperstein, Appellee, v. SHERWOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Feder, Morris, Tamblyn & Goldstein, P.C., Harold A. Feder, Steven P. Meier and Dorian E. Welch, Denver, for appellee.
Paul G. Goss, P.C., Paul G. Goss and David P. Kozma, Denver, for appellant.
Sherwood International, Inc. (Sherwood), appeals the denial by the probate court of its claim against the estate of Arnold Alperstein for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 15-12-803, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). We affirm.
Section 15-12-803 provides a four-month period in which all claims against the decedent's estate must be filed. At the time of the filing of its claim, Sherwood was a suspended corporation. It was not reinstated until after the expiration of the four-month period. Section 7-10-109(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3A) states that, until a suspended corporation becomes reinstated, it is "inoperative and no longer competent to transact business."
The trial court ruled that Sherwood's filing of its claim constituted a "transaction of business." Therefore, having found the corporation to be incompetent when the claim was filed, the trial court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While we disagree with the court's conclusion that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm the denial of the claim on the basis that Sherwood was barred from filing and having its claim considered.
Sherwood contends that the filing of a claim in a probate proceeding is not transacting business. We disagree.
Sherwood argues that a corporation's power to sue is a separate enumerated power from that of transacting business under § 7-3-101(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 3A), and that, because that power is not specifically revoked by § 7-10-109(2), it was the General Assembly's intent to allow a suspended corporation to assert a claim. We reject that argument and hold that, once a corporation is suspended, § 7-10-109, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 3Z) operates to limit the powers of a suspended corporation to those acts delineated in §§ 7-10-109(2), 7-10-109(3) and 7-10-109(4), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3A). See Graham, Inc. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 680 P.2d 1334 (Colo.App.1984). The power to sue is not included. Therefore, we hold that a suspended corporation does not have the power to file and pursue a claim against an estate.
Sherwood next contends that, even if it was without competence to file the claim when it did, its subsequent reinstatement validated that act. We disagree.
It is true that a reinstated corporation is regarded as having had a continuous existence, and therefore, reinstatement generally renders valid acts done while it was on suspension. Dominion Oil Co. v. Lamb, 119 Colo. 62, 201 P.2d 372 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Dvorak
...issue of corporate capacity without reference to the rights of other parties on underlying obligations. Alperstein v. Sherwood Int'l, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo.Ct.App.1989), involved an attempt to file and pursue a claim against an estate by a suspended corporation. The corporation had no au......
-
SMLL, LLC v. Peak Nat. Bank
...that this inability to transact business amounted to a lack of capacity to sue under C.R.C.P. 17. See Alperstein v. Sherwood International, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo.App.1989) (suspended corporation lacked power to file and pursue claim against estate). As noted, the trial court here conclud......
-
Wishbone, Inc. v. Eppinger
...could be considered within that period removed jurisdiction from the trial court to consider that claim. In re Alperstein v. Sherwood International, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo.App.1989). And, this time limitation of four months is "much shorter than, and supersedes, all statutes of limitation......
-
Estate of Binford v. Gibson
...319 (Colo.1990) (appeal from order of probate court determining state's claim for recoupment of funds); In re Alperstein v. Sherwood International, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo.App.1989) (appeal from order of probate court denying creditor's claim). Accordingly, since Gibson did not file a noti......
-
PART 8 CREDITORS' CLAIMS
...section is a non-claim statute which provides an absolute bar to claims which are not timely filed. Alperstein v. Sherwood Int'l, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo. App. 1989). Failure to file a timely claim constitutes a jurisdictional defect and can be raised for first time on appeal. Failure to f......
-
CREDITORS' CLAIMS
...section is a non-claim statute which provides an absolute bar to claims which are not timely filed. Alperstein v. Sherwood Int'l, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo. App. 1989). Failure to file a timely claim constitutes a jurisdictional defect and can be raised for first time on appeal. Failure to f......
-
PART 8 CREDITORS' CLAIMS
...section is a non-claim statute which provides an absolute bar to claims which are not timely filed. Alperstein v. Sherwood Int'l, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo. App. 1989). Failure to file a timely claim constitutes a jurisdictional defect and can be raised for first time on appeal. Failure to f......
-
Chapter 16 - § 16.2 • PROCEDURE
...the capacity to sue and therefore lacked the capacity to pursue a claim against an estate. Matter of Alperstein v. Sherwood Int'l, Inc., 778 P.2d 279 (Colo. App. 1989). § 16.2.3—Unmatured And Contingent Claims An unmatured claim is one that is not yet due and payable. Only the passage of ti......