Title: CARL LITZENBERGER v. KATHRYN L. MERGE, JOHN SCOTT LITZENBERGER AND WILLIAM K. LITZENBERGER, Sole Legatees, Devisees and Heirs at Law of ALVENE LITZENBERGER

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

CARL LITZENBERGER v. KATHRYN L. MERGE, JOHN SCOTT LITZENBERGER AND WILLIAM K. LITZENBERGER, Sole Legatees, Devisees and Heirs at Law of ALVENE LITZENBERGER1985 WY 57698 P.2d 1152Case Number: 84-196Decided: 04/29/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming
CARL LITZENBERGER, 
APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF), 

v. 

KATHRYN L. MERGE, JOHN 
SCOTT LITZENBERGER AND WILLIAM K. LITZENBERGER, SOLE LEGATEES, DEVISEES AND 
HEIRS AT LAW OF ALVENE LITZENBERGER, DECEASED, APPELLEES 
(DEFENDANTS).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofCarbonCounty, Robert A. Hill, 
J.

 
 
Stephen H. Kline 
of Kline & Buck, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Wade E. Waldrip 
of Williams, Kelly & Waldrip, Rawlins, for appellees.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

ROONEY, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal is from an 
order dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice. The complaint requested 
judgment against appellees, as the three remaining heirs of Alvene Litzenberger, 
deceased, in the amount of $24,223.41, the amount of an alleged debt incurred by 
Alvene Litzenberger. The probate of the estate of Alvene Litzenberger has been 
closed and the complaint was founded (in appellant's words) "presumably under an 
unjust enrichment theory or other similar equitable 
theory."

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

[¶3.]     Alvene Litzenberger 
died February 5, 1973. His Last Will and Testament was filed on May 8, 1973. His 
wife and three children were beneficiaries under the will. His wife is deceased, 
and the three children are appellees in this matter. A Notice to Creditors was 
duly published requiring claims to be filed in the office of the clerk of court 
or exhibited to the attorney for the estate. Appellant did not file a claim with 
the clerk of court, but he wrote a letter to the attorney for the estate 
requesting the $24,223.41.

[¶4.]     The attorney for the 
estate died in 1974, and probate action was delayed from 1974 to 1980. The 
estate was closed on April 6, 1981. The complaint in this matter was filed in 
September 1983. The motion to dismiss the complaint was on the basis of the 
statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. The motion was granted with 
prejudice.

[¶5.]     The provisions of § 
2-222, W.S. 1957, were applicable at the time and required 
that:

"Every claim which is 
due, when presented to the executor or administrator, must be supported by the 
affidavit of the claimant, or some one in his behalf, that the account is justly 
due, that no payments have been made thereon which are not credited, and that 
there are no offsets to the same, to the knowledge of the affiant. * * 
*"

Appellant did 
not comply with this statute. The letter sent to the attorney for the estate was 
not verified or alleged to have been verified. If a claim is not presented in 
compliance with the statutory requirements for doing so, it need not be accepted 
or paid.

"We must, therefore, hold 
that the processes of the courts of this state may not be used to enforce the 
payment of claims against an estate of a deceased which have not been presented 
and filed in accordance with requirements made mandatory by our legislative 
bodies. To do otherwise would be to override the lawful exercise of legislative 
prerogative. This we may not do." In re 
Peterson's Estate, 75 Wyo. 416, 296 P.2d 504, 506 
(1956).

[¶6.]     Inasmuch as appellant's 
claim was not properly submitted, its payment cannot be enforced, and the 
dismissal of appellant's complaint with prejudice was not 
error.

[¶7.]     This being so, we need 
not address the questions of whether or not the claim was barred by the statute 
of limitations or by the statute of frauds. We must affirm on appeal if the 
action of the trial court is sustainable on any legal ground appearing in the 
record. Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration 
Corporation, Wyo., 665 P.2d 452 (1983); 
Agar v. Kysar, Wyo., 628 P.2d 1350 
(1981).

[¶8.]     
Affirmed.