Opinion ID: 2330745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: It Was Error To Deny Mary's Petition For Extension Of Time With Respect To Her Third Claim.

Text: Mary's third claim, concerning Michael's alleged mismanagement of Andrew Sr.'s and Marjorie's estates, was not yet barred by non-probate statutes of limitations at the time it was filed, and it was error to so hold. This third claim necessarily arose after Andrew Sr.'s death, since it concerns Michael's administration of Andrew Sr.'s and Marjorie's estates. It may have arisen before or after Marjorie's death, but it necessarily could not have arisen after Michael's death. Using the latest possible accrual date of April 1, 2007 (Michael's death), it would be barred by the tort statute of limitations at latest on April 1, 2009 against Andrew Sr.'s estate (two years per AS 09.10.070, no additional four months per AS 13.16.455), and on August 1, 2009 against Marjorie's and Michael's estates (two years per AS 09.10.070, plus four months per AS 13.16.455). Mary's claims were presented before these two dates, on November 4, 2008. It was therefore erroneous, and an abuse of discretion, to deny Mary's petition for extension on grounds that such extension would be beyond [the applicable] statute[s] of limitations. [36] I would remand this case and require the superior court to consider Mary's third claim concerning Michael's alleged mismanagement of Andrew Sr.'s and Marjorie's estates. In particular, the court should determine which estate, if any, this claim is properly asserted against; whether notice was adequate to trigger the nonclaim bar, and the timing of Mary's awareness of the claim.