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

Heading: Mary's Claims Against All Estates

Text: On November 4, 2008, Mary filed written notice of claims against the estates of Andrew Sr., Marjorie, and Michael. At this time, Sue was sole PR for all three estates. Mary's claims centered on allegedly unpaid expenses arising from her care of her mother Marjorie in Minnesota, as well as allegations of estate mismanagement by Michael during his tenure as PR. Specifically, Mary alleged that she was to be paid $500 per month to care for Marjorie, and that there was failure to pay the monthly amounts for such care. She also alleged that she made home improvements totaling approximately $150,000 (with the exact amount to be shown at trial) for the specific benefit of Marjorie. Lastly, she claimed that Michael had dissipated property, assets, proceeds and profits, and failed to account for the same in his management of the fishing permits and of their parents' property to the detriment of [Mary] and her share of profits in the decedent parents' estates. Mary did not state which claim(s) applied to each estate. She alleged that her claims had been stated in-person in open court on January 29, 2008. [10] In addition to being filed with the court on November 4, 2008, Mary's notice of claims was served directly on Sue's attorneys. On December 17, 2008, Sue, in her capacity as PR of each estate, filed a Notice of Disallowance of Claims in which she rejected Mary's claims as baseless and asserted that in any event they were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. With respect to Mary's claim for unpaid compensation, the Notice of Disallowance of Claims stated first that the proper amount was in fact $600 per month (not $500 as Mary alleged), that this was for payment of the usual, customary and day to day expenses of supporting and caring for the conservatee, that it was not compensation, and that [r]ecords prove that all such payments were made.  (Emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted.) Next, the Notice of Disallowance of Claims stated that Mary's claim was barred because it was not presented by Alaska's probate nonclaim statute, AS 13.16.460. [11] The Notice of Disallowance of Claims also stated that Mary's claim was presented outside the applicable statute of limitations periods and that her claim was unconnected to the estate of Andrew Sr. With respect to Mary's claim for home improvement reimbursement, the Notice of Disallowance of Claims stated that no contract existed for such reimbursement. The Notice of Disallowance of Claims also stated, as above, that the claim was not presented in a timely manner and that no connection existed between this claim and the estate of Andrew Sr. With respect to Mary's claim that Michael had dissipated funds, the Notice of Disallowance of Claims stated that it too was barred because it was not presented in a timely manner. [12] The Notice of Disallowance of Claims concluded with a notice stating YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED that every claim which is disallowed in this notice is forever barred if you fail to file a petition for allowance in the Court or commence a proceeding against the personal representative within sixty (60) days of service of this notice. On February 18, 2009as this 60-day period endedMary petitioned under AS 13.16.465(3) [13] for an extension of time until March 6, 2009 in which to commence her claims. She argued that neither she nor her attorney had seen or received the April 2008 notice to creditors published in the Ketchikan Daily News concerning Sue's appointment as PR for Marjorie's estate. In an affidavit by Mary's attorney supporting the petition for extension, the attorney stated [t]he notice published by [Sue's attorney], without more, constitutes inadequate service under Tulsa Prof. Collection Services v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478, 108 S.Ct. 1340, 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988). [14] On February 23, 2009, Sue filed her opposition to Mary's petition for extension, arguing that each of Mary's claims was barred by a statute of limitations and that an extension was therefore inappropriate under AS 13.16.465(3), which provides that in no event shall [any] extension run beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Mary filed her commencement of claims on March 6, 2009. [15] On April 15, 2009 the superior court denied Mary's Petition for Extension because extension would be beyond [the applicable] statute[s] of limitations. Mary filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 1, 2009. This motion was deemed denied after 30 days pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 77, [16] and this appeal followed.