Opinion ID: 1255461
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Savell letter fails to meet the clear and unequivocal standard

Text: Some passages of the letter arguably support the estate's assertion that the letter constitutes a notice of disallowance. Specifically, the fourth paragraph states: Lest we drop the ball and delay acting upon the claim while waiting for a response from you, it would be safer to disallow the claim pending receipt of the requested documentation. However, the lawyers' reading of this portion of the letter is not implausible. They contend that [t]he phrase ... it would be safer to disallow the claim.... could easily be interpreted to mean that the writer, in the ordinary course of events, would not give the claimant an opportunity to provide additional information since to do so would necessarily involve risk to the Estate, but in this case, (presumably as a professional courtesy) the writer would make an exception and wait for the requested information before making a final determination. Another passage cited by the estate reads, Of course, the personal representatives will reconsider any decision within the next sixty days if the requested material is provided. After sixty days the claim will be barred under AS 13.16.475. (Emphasis added.) The estate argues that by referencing the sixty-day period which begins to run after a notice of disallowance, the letter clearly informs the lawyers that their claim has been denied. The passage seems capable of another interpretation, however. Since the letter refers to any decision instead of this decision or the disallowance, the sentence can also be read to indicate that a decision will be made at some future date. The overall structure of the Savell letter supports the proposition that it fails to meet the clear and unequivocal standard that applies to notices of disallowance. The focal point of the letter seems to be the paragraph in which Savell asks the lawyers for documentation of the fees underlying the promissory note. As the A.L.R. Annotation explains: Where the executor or administrator of an estate, when presented with a claim, has requested a bill of particulars or further information in connection with the claim, several courts have held that such conduct... did not amount to a rejection of the claim for purposes of commencing the statute of limitations . .., the view being taken that such behavior was inconsistent with an unequivocal rejection of the claim, and had the effect of inducing the claimant not to bring suit within the statutory period. Nadel, 36 A.L.R.4th at 688. Moreover, the letter's crucial opening and closing passages strongly imply that a final decision on the claim is not contained in the letter, but will occur at a later date. The first paragraph states that Savell will need more information in order to advise the personal representative in making a determination as to [the lawyers'] claim. The final paragraph anticipates cooperation with the request so that a satisfactory resolution of this claim can be reached. In sum, the Savell letter does not contain a flat-out rejection, but rather contemplates further consideration of the lawyers' claim after their submission of additional information to the estate. Because a notice of disallowance must be clear and unequivocal, we hold that the Savell letter does not constitute an adequate notice of disallowance.