 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cloud v. Summers12/13/1999
late July 1994, after the expiration of the 4-month deadline, Darrell served the personal representatives with a notice of claim, to which he attached a copy of his federal complaint. The Summers Estate rejected Darrell's claim on August 9, 1994, because "said claim is without merit and the claim is barred because of failure to file it in accordance with the requirements of and within the four-month period set forth in RCW 11.40.010, 11.40.013, and 11.40.020." Clerk's Papers at 102. In-grid and William Cloud never filed a creditor's claim.
Our Supreme Court has explained that "{t}here is a difference between a 'claim' presented by creditors of a decedent's estate and actions at law against a decedent's estate. The filing {of} a 'claim' against the estate is generally a condition precedent to maintaining a lawsuit against the estate." Young, 134 Wn.2d at 272 n.2.
Further, "{n}o holder of any claim against a decedent shall maintain an action thereon, unless the claim shall have been first presented as provided in this chapter." Former RCW 11.40.080 (1996).
Darrell's complaint against the Summers Estate, which he filed in federal court within the 4-month time limitation, is not sufficient to satisfy the Washington Probate Notice to Creditor Statute, RCW 11.40. This statute creates a bright line rule that required Darrell to file a notice of claim with the personal representatives. Substantial compliance is not sufficient. Darrell's failure to comply with this rule is fatal, notwithstanding the fact that the Summers Estate was fully aware of the nature of the claim for other reasons, i.e., Darrell's federal lawsuit. The same reasoning defeats In-grid and William Cloud's claim that the amended complaint in federal court adding their claims also suffices because it relates back to the date that Darrell filed his lawsuit in federal court.
The Clouds' federal lawsuit is not an acceptable substitute for filing a creditor's claim as required by RCW 11.40. We therefore conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the Clouds' claims against the Summers Estate because the Clouds failed to comply with the Washington Probate Notice to Creditor Statute, RCW 11.40.
In conclusion, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of the Clouds' case against the School District and affirm its dismissal of the Clouds' claims against the Summers Estate.
WE CONCUR:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|