Hanson v. Estate of Belden, 83-60
Decision Date | 09 September 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 83-60,83-60 |
Citation | 668 P.2d 1331 |
Parties | Kent A. HANSON, Executor and Personal Representative of the Estate of Donald P. Hanson, deceased, and Anna M. Hanson, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. The ESTATE OF Charles F. BELDEN, a/k/a Charles Franklin Belden, deceased, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
John B. Scott, argued, Kathleen A. Hunt, and John E. Stanfield, argued, of Smith, Stanfield & Scott, Laramie, for appellants.
Thomas A. Fennell and Roy Stoddard, Jr., Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before ROONEY, C.J., and THOMAS, ROSE, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment because plaintiffs' action was not filed within the thirty-day period provided in the Probate Code. We reverse and remand.
Appellants raise six issues of error:
Since we agree with appellant as to issue one, it is unnecessary to discuss the other five.
This case arises out of an automobile accident in which both Mr. Hanson and Mr. Belden were killed and Mrs. Hanson was severely injured. The probate of Mr. Belden's estate was commenced in the Sheridan County District Court on November 12, 1981. The first publication of the notice to creditors occurred on February 1, 1982. A timely creditor's claim was filed on behalf of the Hanson family for the wrongful death of Mr. Hanson and the injuries to Mrs. Hanson. On February 23, 1982, that claim was rejected by the personal representative of the Belden estate.
The notice of rejection of the creditor's claim was mailed regular mail (not certified) and received in the office of counsel for plaintiffs on February 25, 1982. On March 31, 1982, a civil action for wrongful death and personal injuries was filed by appellants against appellee's estate. This action was not filed within thirty days after actual receipt of notice of the rejection.
Section 2-7-712(d), W.S.1977, provides:
"When a claim has been filed with the clerk and is rejected in whole or in part, the personal representative shall immediately upon rejection notify the claimant by certified mail." (Emphasis added.)
When this statute is complied with, it triggers § 2-7-718, W.S.1977:
"When a claim is rejected and notice given as required, the holder shall bring suit in the proper court against the personal representative within thirty (30) days after the date of mailing the notice, otherwise the claim is forever barred." (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, we must answer the question whether a claim rejection sent by regular mail and received by claimant's attorney fulfills the notice requirements of § 2-7-712(d) in order to trigger § 2-7-718 and start the running of the thirty-day period within which the claim must be filed.
The district court granted summary judgment on the theory that the suit was not filed within the thirty-day period. The court stated that because the notice of rejection was not sent by certified mail as required by the statute, it was possible that the thirty-day period for filing did not commence to run until the notice was actually received on February 25, 1982. However, even using the date of receipt, rather than the date the letter was mailed, the action was not filed within the thirty days provided.
We hold that, notice having not been given by certified mail as required, the thirty-day period did not begin to run and the action is not barred. We note the rule of law that, generally, actual notice is a sufficient substitute for notice by mail and that defects in complying with technicalities can be ignored when actual notice is proved. However, in this situation, the thirty-day period for filing of a claim is so short, that strict compliance with the requirements of notice by certified mail ought to be required. The statute is clear and precise. The notice of rejection by certified mail to the claimant is not burdensome.
There are some practical reasons for requiring notice of rejection by certified mail. One is more likely to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Accelerated Receivable Solutions v. Hauf
...mail. In addition, certified mail avoids any question as to whether or when actual notice of rejection was received.Hanson v. Estate of Belden, 668 P.2d 1331, 1332 (Wyo.1983).[¶ 13] In the present case, it is clear from the face of ARS's complaint that the notice the Estate sent via certifi......
-
Estate of Reed, Matter of
...to meet the statutory mandate. Additionally, this situation is more egregious than the one this court faced in Hanson v. Estate of Belden, 668 P.2d 1331 (Wyo.1983) involving a similar matter in a slightly different context where strict compliance was required. The sufficiency of the notice ......
-
Zmijewski v. Wright
...73 U.S. at 396. This rule, since originally stated in 1867, remains foundational today for statutory construction. In Hanson v. Estate of Belden, 668 P.2d 1331 (Wyo.1983), this court held that the failure to fulfill the requirements of W.S. 2-7-712(d) prevents the triggering of W.S. 2-7-718......