Ohmie v. Martinez, 18568

• Decision Date: 01 February 1960
• Docket Number: No. 18568,18568
• Citation: 141 Colo. 480,349 P.2d 131
• Parties: Larry OHMIE, by his father and next friend, Harold Ohmie, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary Pauline MARTINEZ, as Administratrix of Estate of Candido G. Martinez, also known as Candido Gonsago Martinez, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 131

349 P.2d 131

141 Colo. 480

Larry OHMIE, by his father and next friend, Harold Ohmie, Plaintiff in Error, v. Mary Pauline MARTINEZ, as Administratrix of Estate of

Candido G. Martinez, also known as Candido Gonsago

Martinez, Defendant in Error.

No. 18568.

Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department.

Feb. 1, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1960.

Ryan, Sayre and Martin, Boulder, for plaintiff in error.

Robert L. Pyle, Denver, for defendant in error.

DOYLE, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, a minor, instituted this action through his father and next friend in the district court of Boulder County seeking damages as a result of injuries incurred in an automobile accident involving a collision between the car in which he was riding and one driven by one Condido G. Martinez. Martinez died as a result of the accident and the defendant named in the suit was Mary Martinez, Administratrix of the Estate of Candido Martinez. Summons in the action was duly served on the Administratrix and on the same day a claim was filed by plaintiff in the county court of Boulder County. This claim was disallowed on the ground that it was not filed within the six months' limitation period and reasons for late filing were not shown. The disallowance of the estate claim was appealed to the district court and finally dismissed without prejudice. Following this, the Administratrix moved to dismiss the district court action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person and on the ground that it failed to state a claim. The district court granted this motion and although its reasons do not appear in the record on error it is conceded by the parties that its basis was lack of jurisdiction.

The determinative issue in the case revolves around the Survival Statute, C.R.S.1953, 152-1-9 (1957 Supp.), and a construction of its terms. It provides in pertinent part as follows:

'* * * Any action under this section may be brought, or the court on motion may allow, the action to be continued by or against the personal representative of the deceased. Such action shall be deemed a continuing one, and to have accrued to or against such representative at the time it would have accrued to or against the deceased, if he had survived. If such action is continued against the personal representative of the deceased, a notice shall be served on him as in cases of original process, but no judgment shall be collectible against a deceased person's estate or personal representative unless a claim shall have been filed within the time and in the manner required for other claims against an estate.'

Plaintiff's position is that the district court has plenary jurisdiction to entertain any and all claims; that this jurisdiction derives from the Constitution of Colorado and that a jurisdictional limitation requiring that such a claim be first filed in the county court would be contrary to the pertinent constitutional provisions. Plaintiff further argues that the statute is reasonably susceptible to a construction which is not in conflict with the constitutional provision referred to. He contends that the statute merely requires that a claim which has been filed in the district court during the lifetime of the decedent may be continued against his personal representative and may be collectible against the estate of the decedent only if notice has been given to the personal representative and a claim has been filed in the estate in the required manner.

The argument of the defendant is that C.R.S. 152-1-9 (1957 Supp.) and 152-12-12 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the county court to hear all claims, including injury claims of the kind here in question, and that once letters of administration have issued the county court has exclusive jurisdiction. A third point on behalf of defendant is that the ruling of the county court on this claim is final and conclusive and it may not be asserted in a separate action in the district court.

Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of Colorado confers an original jurisdiction of all causes 'both at law and in equity, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be conferred by law. * * *' on the district court.

Section 23 of Article VI describes the jurisdiction of county courts and declares that:

'County courts * * * shall have original jurisdiction in all matters of probate, settlement of estates of deceased persons, appointment of guardians, conservators and administrators, and settlement of their accounts, * * *'

This Court has repeatedly held that the jurisdiction of district and county courts is concurrent with respect to matters which fall within the jurisdiction of both. People ex rel. Porteus v. Barton, 16 Colo. 75, 26 P. 149 (district court has power to issue ne exeat to guardian of estate); cf. Marshall v. Marshall, 11 Colo.App 505, 53 P. 617 (suit to recover property held by administratrix). On a number of occasions the assertion of a claim in the district court has been upheld against the objection that it was without jurisdiction to hear the claim. Fish v. Liley, 120 Colo. 156, 208 P.2d 930 (both parties in auto accident dead, wrongful death action maintainable in district court against estate); Vance's Heirs v. Maroney, 3 Colo. 293, 295 (dictum); Marshall v. Marshall, supra; cf. Tucker v. Tucker, 21 Colo.App. 94, 121 P. 125; Finch v. McCrimmon, 98 Colo. 56, 52 P.2d 1150 (suit in district court by executor to recover property, counterclaim by defendant for care given deceased); Pierpoint v. Earl, 80 Colo. 328, 251 P. 529 (dictum); Bennett v. Poudre Valley Nat'l Bank, 129 Colo. 107, 267 P.2d 647 (jurrisdiction in district court to determine claim for attorney fee against estate for representing estate). See Darling v. McDonald, 1882, 101 Ill. 370 (judgment for services as nurse in circuit (district) court, and that court had jurisdiction).

Prior to the amendment of C.R.S. 152-1-9 in 1955 the relation of the time limit on the filing of claims and the jurisdiction of the district court to hear such claims was considered on a number of occasions. McKenzie v. Crook, 110 Colo. 29, 129 P.2d 906 (suit in district court for specific performance of contract to make a will in return for service as nurse, failure to file claim in county court held no bar to district court jurisdiction); Selkregg v. Thomas, 27 Colo.App. 259, 149 P. 273 (suit for fraud brought while the defendant was alive, continued against estate without filing claim in county court; the district court held to have jurisdiction); McClure v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of La Plata, 23 Colo. 130, 46 P. 677 (under the old statute); ...