Marquam v. Ellis
| Decision Date | 16 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 3700-III-2,3700-III-2 |
| Citation | 621 P.2d 190,27 Wn.App. 913 |
| Parties | May MARQUAM, Appellant, v. Natalie Stone ELLIS, Administratrix of the Estate of Kenneth L. Stone, Deceased, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
John Toohey, Richard C. Robinson, Spokane, for appellant.
Fred L. Stewart, McNally & Stewart, Colville, for respondent.
May Marquam appeals a summary judgment dismissing her creditor's claim. We reverse, holding that notice of the rejection of a claim in probate must be served personally or by certified mail to the claimant.
The pertinent uncontroverted facts may be summarized as follows:
Kenneth Stone died May 10, 1978. On September 29, May Marquam through her attorney served upon the attorney for the administratrix of the decedent's estate a notice of claim to recover $10,800 for services rendered to Mr. Stone as his live-in housekeeper, nurse, and companion. The claim was filed in superior court on October 2. On October 4, the administratrix's attorney sent by first-class mail a notice of rejection to the claimant's attorney. The notice of rejection was filed October 24. On May 9, 1979, Marquam filed suit.
The sole issue is whether the rejection notice sent to the claimant's attorney was sufficient compliance with RCW 11.40.030(3) 1 to trigger the running the limitation period of RCW 11.40.060. 2 We answer in the negative. The statutory provisions regarding to whom and in what manner a notice of rejection must be given are for the protection of the claimant. Mallicott v. Nelson, 48 Wash.2d 273, 293 P.2d 404 (1956). Absent a showing of compliance with RCW 11.40.030, the limitation period of RCW 11.40.060 does not commence to run. We are aware Mallicott v. Nelson, supra, held an informal notice of rejection sent only to the claimant's attorney was sufficient to permit the claimant to bring suit to enforce her claim; however, that case must be strictly limited to its facts. 3 To do otherwise would invite unnecessary litigation of factual issues. The statute is clear and precise; notice of rejection by personal service or by certified mail to the claimant is not burdensome.
Judgment reversed and the case is remanded for trial.
1 RCW 11.40.030(3) provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zmijewski v. Wright
...to whom and the manner in which the rejection must be given was for the protection of the claimant; * * *." Id. See Marquam v. Ellis, 27 Wash.App. 913, 621 P.2d 190 (1980) and Mallicott v. Nelson, 48 Wash.2d 273, 293 P.2d 404 (1956). Consistent with the holding and rationale of Hanson, we h......
-
Johnston v. Von Houck
...Von Houck cites cases requiring strict compliance with other statutory requirements in the probate code. ¶ 11 In Marquam v. Ellis, 27 Wash.App. 913, 621 P.2d 190 (1980), Division Three held that the estate's rejection of notice by mail to the claimant's attorney did not trigger the limitati......
-
In the Matter of Estate of Jensen, No. 55764-5-I (Wash. App. 5/30/2006), 55764-5-I.
...address stated in the claim. In 1980, this court addressed the predecessor to this statute, former RCW 11.40.030(3). Marquam v. Ellis, 27 Wn. App. 913, 621 P.2d 190 (1980). That statute If the personal representative shall reject the claim, in whole or in part, he shall notify the claimant ......
-
Hanson v. Estate of Belden, 83-60
...that, after rejection, one has thirty days for bringing actions against the estate. The Washington court of appeals, Marquam v. Ellis, 27 Wash.App. 913, 621 P.2d 190 (1980), considered the issue of whether a rejection notice sent to the claimant's attorney was sufficient compliance with the......