Case Title: Brainard v. Walters

Citation: 331 P.2d 595, 85 Ariz. 60

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1958-11-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
85 Ariz. 60 (1958) 331 P.2d 595 George H. BRAINARD, Appellant, v. Charles N. WALTERS, as Administrator of the Estate of Neil R. McLeod, deceased, Appellee. No. 6248. Supreme Court of Arizona. November 12, 1958. Rehearing Denied November 28, 1958. Mallamo & Parry, of Phoenix, for appellant. Kramer, Roche & Perry, of Phoenix, for appellee. WINDES, Justice. So far as necessary for a solution of the problem presented by this appeal, the facts are that there was a collision between an automobile owned and operated by appellant George H. Brainard and a car being driven by one Neil R. McLeod resulting in McLeod's death and damage to Brainard's car. Without presenting any claim to the appellee, Charles Walters, administrator of McLeod's estate, and after the statutory time for the presentation of claims had expired, the appellant filed suit against the administrator for damages to his automobile alleging negligence of decedent in the operation of his car. Upon the administrator's motion the complaint was dismissed. Brainard appeals. *61 Concededly, except for the failure to allege the presentation of a claim to the administrator prior to filing suit, the complaint states facts that would, if proven, warrant relief. Consequently the only problem for solution is whether one having a claim based on a tortious act of the character alleged in this complaint is barred unless a claim is filed with the administrator as required by the statute. An answer to the question calls for an interpretation of sections 14-570, 14-577 and 14-576, A.R.S. These sections so far as applicable read: Appellant says that these statutes properly construed apply only to claims arising upon contract and have no application to unliquidated tort claims. Appellee argues to the contrary that all claims liquidated or unliquidated (with exceptions not material in the instant case) are barred unless presented to the administrator within the prescribed time for presentation of creditors' claims. We have no case from this jurisdiction exactly in point but so far as we have been able to discover, other jurisdictions with the same statutory provisions have ruled that the statute only applies to claims arising upon contract and there is no necessity of presenting to the administrator claims founded on the tortious act of the decedent. National Automobile & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Ainge, 34 Cal. 2d 806, 215 P.2d 13; Hornbeck v. Richards, 80 Mont. 27, 257 P. 1025; Becker v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Welfare, Okl., 312 P.2d 935. The California supreme court said [34 Cal. 2d 806, 215 P.2d 15]: Montana says [80 Mont. 27, 257 P. 1027]: Oklahoma states [312 P.2d 940]: We agree with the interpretation placed upon these statutory provisions. Appellee contends that our decision in Latham v. McClenny, 36 Ariz. 337, 285 P. 684, is authority for the proposition that all claims irrespective of their basis, whether contract or tort, are barred unless presented to the administrator for action before suit is filed. We do not so interpret the decision. We held in that case that where a trustee converted trust funds and it was impossible to follow and recover the identical funds or the product thereof, an injured beneficiary of the trust must present his claim against the estate for allowance. Such is the general rule but it is based upon the reasoning that under such circumstances the trustee is indebted to the beneficiary for not having accounted to him and it is in the nature of a debt based upon contract. If a trustee withholds money from a beneficiary the latter may recover on the common counts. 54 Am.Jur., Trusts, section 576, page 446. The trustee may be sued for money had and received. Independent School Districts, etc. v. Common School Districts, 56 Idaho 426, 55 P.2d 144, 105 A.L.R. 1267. These are actions based on contract. This principle was well stated long ago in Lathrop v. Bampton, 31 Cal. 17. In enunciating the status of a beneficiary in the event a trustee breaches the trust and the trust property cannot be recovered, the court stated the injured one is forced to rely upon the personal liability of the trustee and: *63 We cannot accept the Latham case as holding that unliquidated claims founded on tort are barred unless such claims are presented to the administrator before filing suit. Our view is that appellant was not required to first present his claim to the administrator and for this reason the judgment of the lower court is reversed with instructions to reinstate the complaint. UDALL, C.J., and PHELPS, STRUCKMEYER and JOHNSON, JJ., concurring.