Haddock v. Williams
| Decision Date | 05 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 39640,39640 |
| Citation | 378 P.2d 774 |
| Parties | Emmett HADDOCK, Administratrix of the Estate of Virginia Jones, deceased, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles A. WILLIAMS, Executor of the Estate of Laura A. Williams, deceased, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. When a claim is rejected by an executor, the holder of the claim must bring a suit in the proper court within three months after the date of its rejection, if it be then due, or the claim is forever barred.
2. The statutory requirement as to the time within which a claim against an estate can be filed is mandatory and neither the heirs nor the administrator or executor can waive such requirements, nor can conduct of heirs or administrators be made the basis of an estoppel which will prevent the bar of the statute.
Appeal from the District Court of Rogers County; John Q. Adams, Judge.
Plaintiff in error brought an action to establish a claim against the Estate of Laura A. Williams, deceased. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Bailey & Whitlock, Norman, for plaintiff in error.
Bassmann, Gordon & Mayberry, by G. Raymond Bassmann, Claremore, H. Tom Kight, Claremore, of counsel, for defendant in error.
Emmett Haddock, Administratrix of the Estate of Virginia Jones, deceased, brought an action against Charles A. Williams, Executor of the Estate of Laura A. Williams, deceased, to establish a claim against the estate of Laura A. Williams. One of the grounds for resisting the claim was that the said claim was barred by the limitation statutes relating to filing of claims against estates. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the trial court sustained defendant's demurrer to the evidence and rendered judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff perfected this appeal from the order overruling its motion for a new trial.
Although the trial court did not state nor does the judgment disclose the specific ground for sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, we are of the opinion that the limitation statutes relating to the barring of claims not presented against an estate within the statutory time is controlling. Therefore we will consider only those facts which relate to limitations and will assume that the following facts, as presented on behalf of the plaintiff, are true.
Laura A. Williams was the mother of Virginia Jones. Emmett Haddock is the daughter of Virginia Jones and the Administratrix of her estate. Charles A. Williams is the son of Laura A. Williams and the Executor of her estate.
In 1949, Virginia Jones and Laura A. Williams entered into a written contract whereby Virginia Jones was to perform certain work and render services for Laura A. Williams. In consideration of the work performed and services rendered, Virginia Jones was to receive $3,000.00 per year. If Virginia Jones predeceased Laura A. Williams, the amount due under the contract would be paid to the heirs of Virginia Jones.
Virginia Jones performed the work and rendered the services as provided in the contract from April 21, 1946 until June 7, 1957, at which time Virginia Jones died.
Laura A. Williams died on February 10, 1958, and after Charles A. Williams was appointed Executor of her estate and caused to be given the Notice to Creditors, Emmett Haddock mailed a photostatic copy of the contract to the Executor with a letter of transmittal. This photostatic copy of the contract was not supported by an affidavit, nor did the Executor ever endorse thereon his allowance or rejection.
Thereafter, and within four months after the Notice to Creditors was given, the heirs of Laura A. Williams, which included the Executor of the Estate of Laura A. Williams, orally agreed that if Emmett Haddock would not present the contract nor any other document as to claim against the estate, that the heirs would, as a consideration, return certain bonds that Mrs. Williams had issued in her name and her children's names, as joint tenants, and that everything would be divided equally between the heirs. Emmett Haddock relied on this oral agreement and did not present a claim within four months from the time Notice to Creditors was given, unless the mailing of a copy of the contract to the Executor constituted the filing of an enforceable claim.
The four months period in which claims against the estate could be presented expired on August 22, 1958. In October, 1958, Emmett Haddock ascertained that the other heirs of Laura A. Williams had disavowed or repudiated the oral agreement as to the division and distribution of the Estate of Laura A. Williams in consideration of Emmett Haddock not presenting a claim against the estate. In January, 1959, a claim against the estate was filed by Emmett Haddock, Administratrix of the Estate of Virginia Jones.
Plaintiff commenced this action to enforce the contract as a claim against the Estate of Laura A. Williams after more than ten days had elapsed after filing the claim with the Executor and the Executor had not endorsed thereon his allowance or rejection.
Plaintiff contends that by furnishing a photostatic copy of the contract, together with the letter of transmittal to the Executor within the four months period, constitutes a submission of the claim within the statutory time.
We find it unnecessary to determine this contention for if such contention is assumed to be correct, under Title 58 O.S.1961 § 339, the claim is barred. This section provides that when a claim is rejected, either by the Executor or the Judge of the County Court, the holder must bring suit against the Executor within three months after the date of its rejection, if it be then due, or within two months after it becomes due, otherwise the claim is forever barred.
The alleged claim in the instant action was due. The Executor did not endorse on his alleged claim his allowance or rejection. Under Title 58 O.S.1961 § 337, the refusal or neglect of the Executor to endorse his allowance or rejection is equivalent to a rejection ten days after a claim is presented.
Assuming, but not deciding, that by furnishing a copy of the contract together with the letter of transmittal to the Executor constituted the filing of a claim against the estate, and further assuming that such was done on August 22, 1958, the last day for presentation of claims in the instant action, under our statutory provisions, the refusal or neglect of the Executor to endorse his allowance or rejection of the alleged claim is equivalent to his rejection ten days after August 22, 1958. Inasmuch as no action was instituted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Int'l Bank of Commerce v. Franklin
... ... It sets out the manner in which claims may be filed in order to expeditiously determine liabilities and close estates. See Haddock v. Williams , 1963 OK 22, 22, 378 P.2d 774, 778. Title 58 O.S. 333 is the statute of nonclaims and it operates to destroy the debt or claim of an ... ...
-
Barnett v. Hitching Post Lodge, Inc.
... ... See United [101 Ariz. 492] ... States Gypsum Co. v. Shaffer, 7 Cal.2d 454, 60 P.2d 998 (1936); Haddock v. Williams, 378 P.2d 774 (Okl.1963) ... Plaintiff contends that his first claim was 'fatally defective' and meaningless ... ...
-
Robertson v. Robertson
... ... Miller, Okl., 366 P.2d 402 (1961) ... 6 Okl., 623 P.2d 606 (1981). See also Wagoner v. Saunier, Okl., 627 P.2d 428 (431) (1981) ... 7 Haddock v. Williams, Okl., ... ...
-
Anderson v. Merriott
... ... Haddock v. Williams, 378 P.2d 774 (Okl.1963) ... Although treated virtually in like manner, an unmatured note is not a contingent or ... ...