Cook's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 17 May 1962
• Docket Number: No. 80,J,80
• Parties: In re COOK'S ESTATE. Mary M. FOX, Administratrix of the Estate of Miles Fox, Deceased, Rachael Glasby, now Rachael Fox, and Mary Ellen Fox, Plaintiff and Appellants, v. The ESTATE of George N. COOK, Deceased, Defendant and Appellee. an. Term.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 98

115 N.W.2d 98

366 Mich. 323

In re COOK'S ESTATE.

Mary M. FOX, Administratrix of the Estate of Miles Fox, Deceased, Rachael Glasby, now Rachael Fox, and Mary Ellen Fox, Plaintiff and Appellants, v. The ESTATE of George N. COOK, Deceased, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 80, Jan. Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 17, 1962.

John Brattin, Lansing, for petitioners and appellants.

Doozan, Scorsone & Trogan, Saginaw, for respondent and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

ADAMS, Justice.

Proceedings in the George N. Cook estate were begun August 22, 1956. The hearing on claims was held July 18, 1957. Order allowing the final account and assigning residue was entered on July 14, 1958. Order discharging the executor and canceling his letters and bond were also entered on July 14, 1958. Later it was discovered that certain shares of stock had been omitted from the order assigning residue and that the listing of the number of shares of another stock was incorrect. On October 8, 1958, the executor filed a petition to reopen the estate to correct these errors. The order was entered on October 13, 1958. An amended order assigning residue was also entered and the estate was 'finally closed.'

On January 13, 1959, petitioners asked the court to reopen the hearing on claims alleging that they had valid claims against the estate and that they had previously lacked knowledge of their legal rights. The probate court granted the petition. Upon appeal to the circuit court, the matter was remanded to the probate court for entry of an order dismissing the petition. From order of the circuit judge, this appeal is taken.

The sole question in whether or not the fortuitous reopening of defendant's estate to correct errors in the order of assignment extends the 3-month period under C.L.1948, § 701.19 (Stat.Ann.1943 Rev. § 27.3178) insofar, as tardy claimants are concerned.

Step by step, proceedings are spelled out in the probate code for the administration of estates. Once all of the steps for the administration of an estate, including the hearing on claims have been concluded and the estate is closed, C.L.1948, § 701.19 (Stat.Ann.1943 Rev. § 27.3178) provides a 3-month period during which time tardy claimants may seek a reopening for the hearing of their claims. Melvin v. Reading, 346 Mich. 348, 78 N.W.2d 181.

The reopening of an estate, under C.L.1948, § 704.56 (Stat.Ann.1959 Cum.Supp. § 27.3178) ¹ to correct errors is not such a proceeding as to extend the time for tardy claimants.

This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that because of errors or omissions in probate proceedings, estates of decedents are reopened, sometimes years after the completion of the original probate. To adopt the interpretation of the statute contended for by petitioners, would put an end to certainty. It would open the way into the unforeseeable future for the filing of tardy claims, not because of their merits but because of some oversight, error or omission in the administration of an estate.

The policy behind statutes of limitation or of nonclaim has been hammered out in countless deliberations. Inevitably and unfortunately, under such statutes, because of lack of diligence, or ignorance of the law, or for some other reason, legal rights of complete validity are barred. Beale v. Swasey, 106 Me. 35, 75 A. 134, 20 Ann.Cas. 396; Melvin v. Reading, supra.

In this case it is alleged that one of the plaintiffs, a minor, suffered substantial injuries and that she had no general guardian. The fashioning of a remedy for these petitioners is not the province of this Court. See Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U.S. 449, 5 S.Ct. 583, 28 L.Ed. 1043; Van Haaren v. Tierney, 180 Mich. 192, 146 N.W. 660. The problem before this Court is to determine the correct interpretation of the statutory law pertaining to the administration of estates.

'The rehearing is a matter of right only if applied for within 18 months and before the estate is closed.' 3 Moore & Denison, Probate Practice, § 797, p. 274.

'An Administrator under the statute is charged with the prompt closing of estates, likewise a creditor should be charged with the prompt filing of claims against estates.' McAvinchey-Michigan Probate Practice, p. 90.

The legislature has provided a definite and final procedure for the handling of claims against estates. See C.L.1948, § 708.1 et seq. (StatAnn.1943 Rev. § 27.3178 et seq.). See, especially, C.L. 1948, § 708.18 (Stat.Ann.1943 Rev. § 27.3178). ² And C.L.1948, § 708.22 (Stat.Ann.1943 Rev. § 27.3178). Probate courts are statutory courts. In re Brown's Estate, 280 Mich. 176, 273 N.W. 436; In re Estate of Jeffers, 272 Mich. 127, 261 N.W. 271. Once these procedures have been followed and the time has run, those who stand without, howsoever meritorious their claims, are corever debarred. In re Estate of Jeffers, supra; In re Thayer's Estate, 210 Mich. 696, 177 N.W. 978.

Affirmed, costs to appellee.

CARR,...