Sparks v. Mach
| Docket Number | S-21-1041 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Citation | 314 Neb. 724 |
| Parties | Kayleen Sparks, appellant, v. David Mach, Special Administrator of the Estate of Leo Mach, deceased, appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
2. Limitations of Actions. The determination of which statute of limitations applies is a question of law.
3 Statutes. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.
4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclusion reached by the trial court.
5. Decedents' Estates: Claims. The Nebraska Probate Code provides two methods of presenting a claim against a decedent's estate: Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2486(1) (Reissue 2016), a claim can be presented by filing a written statement thereof with the clerk of the probate court, or under § 30-2486(2), a claim can be presented by commencing a proceeding against the personal representative in any court that has jurisdiction.
6. Decedents' Estates: Limitations of Actions. Under the Nebraska Probate Code, the first statute of limitations to apply will accomplish a bar.
7. Statutes. Absent anything to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain meaning, and a court will not look beyond the statute or interpret it when the meaning of its words is plain, direct, and unambiguous.
8. Decedents' Estates: Claims: Limitations of Actions. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2484 (Reissue 2016), the running of any statute of limitations, measured from some event other than the death of and subsequent advertisement for claims against a decedent, is suspended during the 2 months following the decedent's death but resumes thereafter as to claims not barred pursuant to any applicable statute of limitations.
9. Decedents' Estates: Debtors and Creditors: Limitations of Actions. The 2-month suspension in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2484 (Reissue 2016) means that by reason of a debtor's death, 2 months is added to the normal period of limitations before a debt is barred.
10. Decedents' Estates. The Nebraska Probate Code should be liberally construed to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.
11. Decedents' Estates: Claims. The probate code does not authorize a claimant to present a claim against the estate by commencing an action against a former personal representative who has been discharged and whose appointment has been terminated.
12. __ __. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2404 (Reissue 2016), a claim against a decedent's estate cannot be commenced before the county court has appointed a personal representative.
13. Decedents' Estates: Actions. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2486(2) (Reissue 2016), an action against a decedent's estate is not commenced unless a claimant files a lawsuit against the personal representative of the estate.
14. Decedents' Estates: Executors and Administrators Statutes. Because a personal representative is not a natural person, but an entity created by statute through a court order of appointment, when an estate is closed and the personal representative discharged, there is no viable entity or person to sue.
15. Decedents' Estates: Executors and Administrators: Pleadings. An otherwise valid amended complaint, filed after a complaint filed prematurely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2404 (Reissue 2016) but after the appointment or reappointment of a personal representative, is sufficient to commence a proceeding within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2486(2) (Reissue 2016).
16. Limitations of Actions: Pleadings. Under certain situations as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016), an amended complaint may relate back to the commencement date of an earlier complaint.
Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, Moore, Riedmann, and Welch, Judges, on appeal thereto from the District Court for Douglas County, Todd O. Engleman, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions.
William J. Pfeffer, of Pfeffer Law Offices, for appellant.
Kyle Wallor, of Lamson, Dugan &Murray, L.L.P., for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J. I.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals held that Kayleen Sparks' action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident was a "nullity," because the original complaint was filed against the other driver's closed estate and its discharged special administrator.[1] This appeal turns upon whether the defective filing could be "cured" upon reopening the estate, reappointing the special administrator and then filing an amended complaint. If so, we must determine whether Sparks commenced the proceeding within the applicable statute of limitations under the Nebraska Probate Code (NPC).[2] Because we conclude that Sparks timely remedied the situation, we reverse.
II. BACKGROUND
Because this appeal focuses on a statute of limitations, specific dates matter. Among them are the dates of the accident, the decedent's death, the filing of Sparks' complaint, the reappointment of a special administrator, and the other filings and service of process in the damage suit.
On March 3, 2017, Sparks and the decedent, Leo Mach (Mach), were involved in a motor vehicle accident. Mach died on September 6 of unrelated causes, prompting the opening of his estate and the appointment of David Mach (David) as special administrator. In December 2019, Mach's estate was closed, and David was discharged as special administrator. It appears to be undisputed that David did not send Sparks a copy of any notice to creditors.
On February 24, 2021 (shortly before 4 years after the accident), Sparks filed a complaint in the district court against "DAVID MACH, Special Administrator for THE ESTATE OF LEO MACH," alleging Mach's negligence in the March 3, 2017, accident. The court issued a summons the same day the complaint was filed, on February 24. This was the first, but not the only, summons issued by the district court. The complaint did not allege that the complaint was seeking only to pursue liability insurance proceeds; instead, it was silent regarding that matter.
After filing the complaint, Sparks learned the estate was closed and David had been discharged as special administrator. Sparks filed an application in the county court to reopen the estate and reappoint David as special administrator.
On March 5, 2021 (4 years and 2 days after the date of the accident), the county court granted Sparks' application and reappointed David as special administrator.
On March 8, 2021, Sparks served David with the first summons and the original complaint. In response, David filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
On April 21, 2021, Sparks filed an amended complaint, asserting that although David had previously been discharged as special administrator, Mach's estate had been reopened and David reappointed as special administrator. On the same date (April 21), the court issued a second summons.
Two days later, on April 23, 2021, David was served with the second summons and the amended complaint. On that same date, Sparks also filed a motion to again amend the complaint. These events occurred within 4 years and 2 months from the date of the accident.
The district court held two hearings on David's motion to dismiss and Sparks' motion to amend. Citing Nebraska case law, David argued that Sparks' original complaint was a legal nullity because it was filed prior to the reopening of the estate and reappointment of David as special administrator. Sparks countered that process was served only after the estate was reopened and David was reappointed. Sparks further argued that even if the original filing was improper, her amended complaint-which was filed after David's reappointment- should relate back to the original filing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.02 (Reissue 2016). The court overruled David's motion to dismiss and sustained Sparks' motion to amend.
On June 1, 2021 (more than 4 years and 2 months after the accident), Sparks filed her second amended complaint and initiated service upon David and his attorney by certified mail and electronic service. In response, David filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment. David's answer noted that Mach's estate was not reopened, and he was not reappointed as special administrator, until March 5, 2021-2 days after the 4-year statute of limitations for negligence actions[3]had run.
Following a hearing, the district court entered an order granting David's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Sparks' action with prejudice. The court's decision turned on three issues. First, citing a specific provision[4] under the NPC and a Court of Appeals' decision,[5] it found that Sparks' attempt to commence an action on February 24, 2021, before David's reappointment as special administrator on March 5, rendered the action a "nullity." Second, the court stated that Sparks' action failed to comply with the 4-year...
To continue reading
Request your trial