Estate of Rains, Matter of
Decision Date | 12 July 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 65750,65750 |
Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Gilbert R. RAINS, Deceased. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The substitution of a deceased party's estate for a party dying during the pendency of an action, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-225, constitutes the revival of an action pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2238(1). When such revival is accomplished, a legal exhibition of the demand has been made. All that remains to be done in the probate proceeding is the filing of a certified copy of the final judgment in the action within 30 days of the judgment's entry.
2. Where an action is duly revived against an estate and judgment entered against the estate, which judgment is affirmed on appeal, the appellate decision is the final judgment, and a certified copy of that judgment must be filed in the probate proceeding within 30 days of its entry pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2238(3).
Mark W. McGrory of Morrison, Hecker, Curtis, Kuder & Parrish, Overland Park, argued the cause, and Susan G. Saidian, of the same firm, of Wichita, was with him on the briefs for appellant Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
Edward G. Collister, Jr. of Collister & Kampschroeder, Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Estate of Gilbert R. Rains.
This is an appeal from the district court's denial of a petition for allowance of demand filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) against the Estate of Gilbert R. Rains, deceased. The basis of the claim is a federal court judgment entered against the Estate. The district court held that the FDIC had failed to prove its claim in that it had not followed either of the statutory methods for doing so.
The facts may be summarized as follows. In 1985, Gilbert R. Rains filed an action in the district court of Reno County against the Boulevard State Bank (BSB) and others. BSB filed a counterclaim therein seeking repayment of two loans made to Rains. In the early part of 1987, BSB failed and was taken over by FDIC, which was substituted as a party defendant on June 3, 1987. Meanwhile, on March 27, 1987, Gilbert R. Rains died. Probate proceedings were commenced on April 15, 1987, with the wife, Pauline Rains, being appointed executrix. On September 1, 1987, FDIC caused the action to be removed to the federal district court. A dispute arose as to whether or not FDIC had properly substituted the Estate for the deceased individual pursuant to K.S.A. 60-225(a)(1).
On May 3, 1988, the federal district court held in favor of FDIC both on the timeliness of the substitution and on the merits of the counterclaim. After various post-judgment motions, an entry of judgment was filed on January 10, 1990. On January 17, 1990, an uncertified copy of the judgment was filed in the Estate attached to a petition for allowance of demand. The Estate appealed the federal judgment to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal district court opinion is Estate of Rains v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 702 F.Supp. 1520 (D.Kan.1988), and may be referred to if additional information on this aspect of the facts is desired.
On June 26, 1990, the Reno County District Court denied FDIC's petition for allowance of demand on the ground the claim had not been properly proved by either statutory method. Specifically, the court held: The petition for allowance was not filed within the time fixed by law (K.S.A.1990 Supp. 59-2237 and K.S.A.1990 Supp. 59-2239); nor was a certified copy of the judgment filed within 30 days of its entry pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2238. FDIC filed its notice of appeal therefrom on September 21, 1990 (filed within 30 days after the denial of its motion for reconsideration). On February 25, 1991, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the federal district court in an unpublished opinion (1991 WL 35375 [10th Cir.Kan.]. A certified copy of the Tenth Circuit opinion was filed in Reno County in the proceedings herein on March 4, 1991. On May 13, 1991, the Tenth Circuit denied the Estate's motion for rehearing and certified copies of the same were filed in Reno County and with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts within 30 days of its entry. The Estate filed a motion before us to strike these filings relative to actions taken by the Tenth Circuit as being subsequent to and outside of the record herein. The motion was denied on June 17, 1991. For reasons to be hereinafter discussed, these filings are germane to the decision of the issues before us.
We turn now to the statutes relative to the exhibition of demands against an estate which provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
The federal district court decision (and the Tenth Circuit affirmance thereof) concerned, inter alia, some irregularities in the substitution of the Estate as a party. The two federal courts concluded these irregularities were primarily caused by the attorney for the Estate and held the substitution to be valid. What is the effect of this determination? As the federal district court properly stated:
In view of the fact the Reno County District Court referred to the procedure set forth in K.S.A.1990 Supp. 59-2237, some comment needs to be made relative to that statute. It sets forth how a demand is to be exhibited where litigation thereon is not pending against the deceased and where no separate litigation is to be commenced against the estate. If litigation is involved, then the demand is exhibited against the estate by the means set forth in K.S.A. 59-2238. In the case before us, the demand was legally exhibited against the Estate by the revival of the action ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Padron v. Lopez
..."attempts to enforce a foreign judgment which is subject to modification would be a waste of everyone's time." In re Estate of Rains, 249 Kan. 178, 185, 815 P.2d 61 (1991). This holding does not clearly apply to this case, however, because Estate of Rains dealt with a judgment on appeal, no......
-
Hankin v. Graphic Technology, Inc.
...may be registered in Kansas and need not be a final judgment in order to be given full faith and credit. In In re Estate of Rains, 249 Kan. 178, 185, 815 P.2d 61 (1991), the district court held that a demand filed against an estate by the FDIC was ineffective because the FDIC had failed to ......
-
Moore v. Luther
...have only discussed this statute when one of the parties has passed away after proceedings have commenced. See In re Estate of Rains, 249 Kan. 178, 815 P.2d 61 (1991); Shepard v. Dick, 203 Kan. 164, 453 P.2d 134 (1969); Livingston v. Estate of Bias, 9 Kan. App.2d 146, 673 P.2d 1197 (1984); ......