State v. Griffith's Estate

• Decision Date: 25 October 1954
• Docket Number: 17343,Nos. 17342,s. 17342
• Citation: 130 Colo. 312,275 P.2d 945
• Parties: STATE of Colorado, for the State Department of Public Welfare, Plaintiff in Error, v. ESTATE of Alice May GRIFFITH, also known as Alice M. Griffith and Alice Griffith, Deceased, and David B. Richeson, Public Administrator, as Administrator thereof, Defendants in Error. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Plaintiff in Error, v. ESTATE of Alice May GRIFFITH, also known as Alice M. Griffith and Alice Griffith, Deceased, and David B. Richeson, Public Administrator, as Administrator thereof, Defendants, in Error.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 945

275 P.2d 945

130 Colo. 312

STATE of Colorado, for the State Department of Public

Welfare, Plaintiff in Error, v. ESTATE of Alice May GRIFFITH, also known as Alice M.

Griffith and Alice Griffith, Deceased, and David

B. Richeson, Public Administrator, as

Administrator thereof,

Defendants in Error.

JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Plaintiff in Error, v. ESTATE of Alice May GRIFFITH, also known as Alice M.

Griffith and Alice Griffith, Deceased, and David

B. Richeson, Public Administrator, as

Administrator thereof,

Defendants, in Error.

Nos. 17342, 17343.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Oct. 25, 1954.

Rehearings Denied Nov. 15, 1954.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Wachob, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert S. Wham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error State of Colorado.

Mansur Tinsley, Lakewood, for plaintiff in error Jefferson County Department of Public Welfare.

David B. Richeson, Edgewater, for defendants in error.

HOLLAND, Justice.

Due to the similarity of the subject involved, the two cases appearing on the title page are consolidated for purposes of review. It is made plain that double recovery is not sought, and the State of Colorado filed its claim in the estate involved as a matter of security against a possible determination that the county welfare department is not a part of the sovereign, and for that reason be denied recovery.

Alice May Griffith, a resident of Jefferson county, died intestate September 28, 1952. Beginning in May of 1947, she was the recipient of old age pension benefits from the State of Colorado until her death, having received the total sum of $4,691.65. Two days after her death, letters of administration were issued to the Public Administrator of Jefferson county, who filed an inventory on October 14 following his appointment, which disclosed an estate in Colorado of the gross value of $7,980.41, which represented $3,750 real estate; $4,069.16, bank account; and $161.25 as value of other property. The real estate was sold for $5,000 cash and was sale confirmed November 5, 1952. Proof of publication of notice of creditors was filed April 14, 1953, and on November 6, 1952, Jefferson county welfare department filed its claim in the pending estate for a refund of the pension payments made to deceased from April 1950 to June 1951, in the total amount of $592.28. This claim was approval and allowed by the court June 8, 1953. After the filing of an additional inventory, the welfare department filed its amended claim covering all amounts paid to deceased from May 1947 through September of 1952. Before a hearing on the claim thus presented, the administrator and counsel for the welfare department stipulated that the deceased was ineligible to receive the pension payments that had been made to her. On the hearing, the county court allowed the claim of $592.28 which was filed November 6, 1952, but denied the amended claim filed on June 26, 1953 on the ground that the latter claim was barred by the nonclaim statute, which provides that all claims, including nonmatured and contingent claims be filed within six months of the issuance of letters of administration, and if not filed within said six months shall be forever barred against said estate.

Prior to the hearing on the claim filed by the county welfare department, the State of Colorado, through the Attorney General, upon the requirement of the Governor, had filed its claim covering the items presented in the claim of the welfare department. The State of Colorado filed its claim as a matter of security against the contingency that might arise in the prosecution of the welfare department's claim to the effect that the welfare department was not such an arm of the state government as to be entitled to the state's claim of immunity from the bar of the statute of nonclaim, which was relied upon by the county court.

Both claimants now appear as plaintiffs in error and seek review of the judgment denying their claims on the ground expressed by the trial court and here follow the contention made in the county court that the Jefferson County Department of Public Welfare was, and is, an instrumentality of the state and as such, in acting on behalf of the state, was entitled to all of the attributes of immunity, almost universally given, from the operation of all statutes of limitations, and it is needless to say that this argument includes any argument to be made on behalf of the state. The first premise for consideration is the holding to be found in all the decisions from other jurisdictions and appearing in all text writing, to the effect that claims of a state or its subdivisions or of any arm of the sovereign power, when acting in and under that power in their governmental capacities, are not barred by limitation or nonclaim statutes, unless expressly included in such statutes. An examination of the statute relied upon by the trial court as a bar to the claims here presented, discloses that it is neither an express nor an implied application to the state.

Upon the stipulated fact that deceased was ineligible, and section 14, chapter 201, p. 893, S.L. '37, which is as follows:

'Any person who makes a false representation of a...