Opinion ID: 2604155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The distinction between a statutory limitation on the time to bring an action and a restriction on one's right to challenge previous judicial action in admitting a will to probate.

Text: If the time limits in § 67 governed merely the time to bring an action, they could be regarded as an ordinary statute of limitations and be extended by § 100. But if the § 67 time bar must be regarded as limiting the court's power to entertain the contest, then the § 100 recommencement period cannot extend the § 67 time bar. This is so because the power of the court ceases at the expiration of the very period prescribed for its exercise. Whether the statutory period for bringing a post-probate will contest constitutes a limitation on the exercise of judicial power or a limitation on bringing an action is to be divined from the legislative intent. [22] Section 67 plainly evinces concern for expediency in the prosecution of all post-probate will challenges. A nondisabled contestant is given but three months to bring a contest after the will has been admitted. Not unmindful of the special problems minors and persons of unsound mind may encounter in their quest for judicial relief, the legislature provided in § 67 a savings clause for persons who stand under a legal disability. The latter may bring a contest within one year after their impediment has been removed. The lapse-of-time provision in § 67 clearly evinces a design to extinguish the contestant's right to challenge the will's prior admission and to serve as a limitation upon the court's power to hear and to determine the post-probate challenge. [23] In short, the opportunity to bring a post-probate will contest is irretrievably lost unless the quest for relief be brought within the specific period provided in § 67. [24] The contestant's second petition for post-probate contest was correctly dismissed as untimely brought. The opinion by the Court of Appeals is vacated and the trial court's dismissal order is affirmed. DOOLIN, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS and WILSON, JJ., concur. HODGES and KAUGER, JJ., dissent.