Opinion ID: 2330745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Characterizing Mary's Claims Against All Estates

Text: The superior court denied Mary's petition for an extension of time in which to commence claims because extension would be beyond [the] statute[s] of limitations. Mary argues chiefly that publication notice was insufficient to trigger the nonclaim statute time bars. Mary seems to suggest that she was entitled to personal notice and argues that, in any event, Sue should have filed proof of publication of notice to creditors to the court. Sue counters that proof of publication was eventually filed but maintains that in any case the claims are precluded under other statutes of limitations. Mary did not specify which claim(s) applied to each estate, so I interpret each claim as applying to all three estates. Two of Mary's three claims involve payment disputes arising from the conservatorship arrangement for Marjorie. First, Mary alleges that as conservator of Marjorie's estate, Michael failed to make certain monthly payments as required under the conservatorship order. The conservatorship order stipulated that Michael (conservator of Marjorie's estate) pay $600 per month [f]rom the funds of the conservatee, as available,  to Mary (conservator of Marjorie's person). (Emphasis added.) The correct characterization of Mary's first claim seems to be as a breach of fiduciary duty, becauseif Mary can prove that sufficient funds were indeed available in Marjorie's estate, but withheld by MichaelMichael may have breached his duty as conservator of Marjorie's estate, which would sound in tort. [30] Thus, the applicable limitations period is two years under AS 09.10.070, with a potential four-month tolling period under AS 13.16.455. The latest possible accrual date [31] for this claim is November 9, 2001, the date Marjorie died. Regarding Mary's second claim, that Michael failed to reimburse her for home improvements, the conservatorship order makes no mention of any home improvements; Mary appears to have undertaken any such improvements under her own initiative. Thus, quasi-contract or unjust enrichment appear to be the proper characterization of her home improvement claimboth of which sound in contract. The applicable limitations period for contract claims is three years under AS 09.10.053, with a potential four-month tolling period under AS 13.16.455. Like the first claim, the latest possible accrual date for the second claim is November 9, 2001, when Marjorie died. Mary's third claim concerns Michael's alleged mismanagement of his parents' estates, a claim sounding in tort and governed by the two-year statute of limitations. [32] Thus, the applicable limitations period is two years under AS 09.10.070, with a potential four-month tolling period under AS 13.16.455. Because it alleged Michael's mismanagement of estate funds, the last possible date on which the third claim could arise is the date of Michael's death, which occurred on April 1, 2007.