IN RE ESTATE OF REECE
| Decision Date | 27 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A2443.,A99A2443. |
| Citation | 532 S.E.2d 726,243 Ga. App. 173 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE OF REECE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Donald L. Mize, Marietta, for appellant.
Moore, Ingram, Johnson & Steele, William R. Johnson, Melissa W. Gilbert, Marietta, for appellee.
Peggy S. Reece appeals the probate court decision dismissing with prejudice her application for year's support in connection with the death of her husband Larry Cecil Reece. She asserts the court made several erroneous findings leading to its decision.
Larry Reece died intestate on December 20, 1995, leaving a widow, an adult daughter (Vickie Knicely), and a 14-year-old son. On April 1, 1996, Reece became administrator of her husband's estate. She filed an application for year's support on December 18, 1996, on behalf of herself and her minor child. She included a prayer that "citation issue and be published, and (all interested persons) be given ... notice ... by mailing to [them] a copy of said citation." On December 19, the court signed an "Order for Citation" directing the clerk of the court to mail a copy of the citation to all the interested persons. Although notice was published in the county legal newspaper, notice to the interested persons was never mailed.
On February 3, 1997, there was a hearing in the case following which the probate court continued the case, stating that it "require[d] a specific description of the property of the decedent."
On February 19, 1999, more than three years after her husband's death, Reece filed an amendment to her original petition for year's support and included a legal description of the real property. A hearing was held on February 23, and the probate court entered an "Order for Citation" on that day in which it stated that Reece's original application did not include the appropriate legal descriptions and that, therefore, the citation was never served on the interested parties. The court went on to note that Reece's amended application did contain legal descriptions and that the court would reissue the citation for the case and order the clerk to serve the citation on the interested parties. Service was accomplished shortly thereafter.
On March 3, Knicely filed a caveat to the application for year's support and one week later filed a motion to dismiss the application on several grounds including that the applicable statute of limitation had run. On June 1, the court entered detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, dismissing the application for year's support with prejudice.
In seven enumerations of error, Reece contends the court erred in granting the motion to dismiss.
The court found that because the initial petition was missing certain information, it was not properly filed and could not be served.1 The court indicated that the February 3, 1997 continuance was granted in order to allow Reece to get the missing information but that Reece did not take action for two more years, until after the limitation period had run. An amended application containing the proper information ultimately was served. But, because that amendment came over three years after the death of the deceased and because Reece was guilty of laches in the interim, the statute of limitation was not tolled. Further, by that time, the minor son had reached the age of majority thereby eliminating his claim for year's support for a second reason.2
The critical fact in this case is that the interested parties were not served with notice of the application for year's support until after the running of the statute of limitation. Although the parties dispute whether the original application contained all of the information required by the statute, that issue is moot because Reece failed to act diligently to ensure that service occurred within the statute of limitation.
OCGA § 53-5-2(d) of the pre-1998 Probate Code required that all applications for year's support "shall be filed within three years from the date of death of the decedent."3 Under the facts of this case, the same Code required service on the interested parties: "[t]he judge of the probate court or his clerk shall cause a copy of the citation to be sent by mail to each interested person...." OCGA § 53-5-8(c)(2), (3). Here there was no service within the three-year limitation period.
Under the Civil Practice Act, it is well settled that mere filing of an action without service does not toll the statute of limitations. See Thorburn Co. v. Allied Media &c., 237 Ga.App. 800, 802(1), 516 S.E.2d 833 (1999); Hilton v. Maddox Bishop &c. Contractors, 125 Ga.App. 423, 188 S.E.2d 167 (1972) and cases cited therein. And, "[w]hen service is made outside the limitation period, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that due diligence was exercised." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mitchell v. Hamilton, 228 Ga.App. 850-851, 493 S.E.2d 41 (1997). We see no reason why the same rule should not apply to the service provisions of an application for year's support. See Cochran v. McCollum, 233 Ga. 104, 210 S.E.2d 13 (1974) ().
In 1976, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution requires that all interested persons who are known or easily ascertainable must receive notice of a year's support action. Allan v. Allan, 236 Ga. 199, 206, 223 S.E.2d 445 (1976).4 The same principle of due process underlies the requirement of adequate notice for other actions...
To continue reading
Request your trial