Court Opinion

ID: 9760079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:40:09.096092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.174501
License: Public Domain

STORCKMAN, Presiding Judge
(separate opinion).
The plaintiff, Harry J. North, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County against the defendant, Esther C. Hawkin-son, Executrix of the Estate of Axel Haw-kinson, Deceased, to recover judgment against the estate for his share of the profits of a partnership claimed to have been entered into between the plaintiff and Mr. Hawkinson in his lifetime. On motion of the defendant, plaintiff’s petition was dismissed on the grounds that (1) it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, (2) the claim was barred by nonclaim statutes of the new probate code, sections 473.360 and 473.367, and (3) the claim was barred by laches. Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of dismissal. The appeal has been twice heard in this court. On rehearing additional briefs were filed by the parties, and we have also been aided by able briefs of amici curiae.
In substance the petition alleges that in 1938 the plaintiff and Mr. Hawkinson entered into an oral partnership for the purpose of investing and speculating in real estate, the profits of which were to be divided equally between them; that the partnership transacted its business until on or about Dspember, 1940, when they agreed that the partnership would be dissolved; that it was agreed that Hawkinson would continue to handle the numerous transactions and collections which were pending and any profits resulting were to be divided equally; that said agreement remained in effect from December, 1940, until the date of Mr. Haw-kinson’s death and no settlement had been made between the plaintiff and Mr. Haw-kinson as to any of the business transacted either before or after the dissolution of the partnership; that the transactions constituted a mutual running and current account of the partnership business; that Mr. Hawkinson recognized “the said trustee relationship and trust” at all times during his lifetime and both the plaintiff and Mr. Hawkinson acquiesced in the delay pertaining to an accounting; that during the entire period of time Mr. Hawkinson kept the books and records and the only way the plaintiff could determine with any degree of exactitude the amount owed him is by an accounting of all the transactions from 1940 to date and that either a reference or receivership should be had and a complete accounting made; that the plaintiff believed that he was entitled to a judgment against the defendant’s estate in the sum of $80,000; that the plaintiff has no *742adequate remedy at law; that a notice had been filed in the Probate Court of Jackson County for the purpose of notifying that court that this bill in equity had been filed “though said Probate Court has no equitable jurisdiction.” The prayer of the petition is that the cause be referred to a referee, commissioner, or receiver to take and state a mutual account of all dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and Hawkinson and to report to the court what balance appears to be due from either party to the other, and that “the plaintiff have a judgment for said amount so determined against defendant, interest and his cost” and for other and further relief.
Mr. Hawkinson died on March 3, 1956, letters testamentary were issued on his estate on March 14, 1956, and the first publication of notice of letters testamentary was made on March 19, 1956. Plaintiff’s petition was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on March 12, 1957.
The defendant has at least impliedly conceded that the petition states a cause of action. Also the claim of laches is not pressed on this appeal perhaps in recognition of the fact that the question of laches is one of fact which can better be determined upon the trial of the merits from all the facts and circumstances. In re Thomson’s Estate, 362 Mo. 1043, 246 S.W.2d 791, 29 A.L.R.2d 1239. Thus, the defendant’s sole contention is that the petition was properly dismissed because the action is barred by the nine-month nonclaim statutes of the probate code, especially sections 473.360 and 473.367, RSMo 1955 Supp. In avoidance of this, the plaintiff contends that this action is strictly one in equity over which the probate court has no jurisdiction and, therefore, the nonclaim statutes are inapplicable.
We may assume, at least for the purposes of this appeal, that this petition states a cause of action in equity for an accounting between partners. 40 Am.Jur. 361, Partnership § 330; 68 C.J.S. Partnership § 405, p. 927; Johnson v. Ewald, 82 Mo.App. 276, 284; Torbert v. Jeffrey, 161 Mo. 645, 656, 61 S.W. 823, 826.
We are not here concerned with the question of the jurisdiction of the probate court to hear and determine an action of this kind because the action was filed in the circuit court and there has been no attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the probate court. The question simply is whether the circuit court is prevented from hearing and determining the case on the merits by reason of the nonclaim provisions of the new probate code, Laws of Mo.1955, pp. 385, 434, § 139 et seq.
It is apparent that the circuit court’s general jurisdiction of actions against executors or administrators of the estates of decedents has not been impaired by the new code. Section 472.010 et seq. RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Reference to a few of the sections of the probate code makes this clear. Thus, an action pending against a person at the time of his death may be revived against the decedent’s estate, section 473.363. An action may be commenced against an executor or administrator after the death of the decedent, section 473.367. All actions against the estate of the deceased person filed under section 473.367 shall be barred unless notice of the institution thereof is filed in the probate court within nine months after the first published notice of letters, section 473.360, subd. 2. Judgments of courts of record may be filed in the probate court and classified as are other claims allowed in the probate court, section 473.373. Claimants are encouraged to file in the probate court claims based on express or implied contract by a provision that the claimant shall be adjudged to pay all costs if he chooses to file in the circuit court unless the suit is one “not cognizable in the probate court,” section 473.377, but suits in the circuit court are not prohibited. A similar jurisdiction was recognized to be in the circuit court prior to the new code. Pryor v. Kopp, 342 Mo. 887, 119 S.W.2d 228, 229 [1].
*743Since the action is within the jurisdiction of the circuit court, it may go forward to a determination unless the nonclaim provisions of the probate code are applicable. The narrow question presented on this appeal is whether the nonclaim provisions of the new probate code, and more particularly sections 473.360, subds. 1, 2 and 473.367 thereof, have the legal effect of statutes of limitation and were intended to apply to an action in equity filed in the circuit court against the executor of a probate estate more than nine months after the first publication of letters testamentary.
“Generally speaking, no one has a vested right in a statute of limitations, and it is competent for the legislature, either by extending or reducing the period of limitation, to regulate the time within which suits may be brought even on existing causes of action. The power to reduce the period of limitation, however, is subject to the fundamental condition that an adequate means of enforcing the right of action remains and that a reasonable time shall be allowed for the exercise of the right whether existing or prospective, after it comes within the prospective or present operation of the statute and before the bar becomes effective.” 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 266a, p. 1257. This statement of the rule is quoted and applied in Hartvedt v. Maurer, 359 Mo. 16, 220 S.W.2d 55, 58 [3], To the same effect, see 34 Am.Jur. 33, Limitations of Actions §§ 27 and 28. See also Campbell v. Webb, 363 Mo. 1192, 258 S.W.2d 595, 606 [17], and Cobble v. McDonald, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 713, 716 [2], wherein it was held that section 507.100 providing for substitution on the death of a party is in the nature of a special statute of limitations and that the general assembly may properly either extend or reduce the period subject to the standard of reasonableness. In the interest of the expeditious settlement of the estates of decedents, the general assembly undoubtedly has the power to limit the time for filing claims in probate court, and for reviving pending actions or bringing new ones in other courts, in case of the death of the party against whom the claim is asserted or the action brought.
The word “nonclaim” does not appear to be of statutory origin but is commonly used to designate the statutes providing for the time and manner of presenting claims against an estate in probate court. Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines “nonclaim” as: “Neglect or failure to make a demand within the time limited by law.” Of the same import is the definition of “non-claim” in Baldwin’s Century Edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. However, we are not concerned with the nomenclature but with the legal effect of the nonclaim statutes. In Williamson v. McCrary, 33 Ark. 470, the Supreme Court of Arkansas in determining the legal effect of similar probate statutes which provided that all demands not exhibited to the personal representative within two years after the grant of letters “shall be forever barred,” stated at pages 473-474 of 33 Ark.: “This is in express terms a statute of limitations, applicable alone to claims against estates, prescribing the time in which they must be brought to the notice of the personal representative by exhibition. The mode of exhibition may be by revivor of a pending action * * * or the beginning of a new action against the representative * * *, or by delivery of a copy of the instrument or account upon which the claim is founded. These limitations supersede and take the place of the general statute of limitations, but that is only the change from one system of limitations regulating suits inter vivos, to another governing proceedings against estates.” Montelius & Fuller v. Sarpy, 11 Mo. 237, 242, likewise holds “that the limitation therein provided for entirely supersedes the general statute on that subject.” The nonclaim statutes of the present probate code have the attributes, characteristics and consequences of general statutes of limitation and should be so enforced.
The word claims, as used in the probate code, is defined to “include liabilities of the *744decedent which survive whether arising in contract or in tort or otherwise, * Section 472.010, subd. 3. (Unless otherwise noted, all italics within quotations are supplied and all statutory references are to RSMo 1949, as amended by Laws of Mo. 1955, p. 385.) Section 473.360, insofar as pertinent to this case, provides with respect to the limitation on filing claims as follows: “1. Except as provided in sections 473.367 and 473.370, all claims against the estate of a deceased person, * * *, whether due or to become due, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, founded on contract or otherwise, which are not filed in the probate court within nine months after the first published notice of letters testamentary or of administration, are forever barred against the estate, the executor or administrator, the heirs, devisees and legatees of the decedent. * * As regards an action against an executor or administrator, section 473.367 provides: “Any action commenced against an executor or administrator, after death of the decedent, is considered a claim duly filed against the estate from the time of serving the original process on the executor or administrator and the filing of a copy of the process and return of service thereof in the probate court.” Paragraph 2 of section 473.360 provides: “All actions against the estate of a deceased person, * * * filed under sections * * * 473.367, * * * shall be barred unless notice of the * * * institution thereof is filed in the probate court within nine months after the first published notice of letters.”
“Generally, an action is such a judicial proceeding as, conducted to termination, results in a judgment.” State ex rel. Silverman v. Kirkwood, 361 Mo. 1194, 239 S.W.2d 332, 336 [6], There is nothing in the nonclaim statutes to indicate that the term “action” was not used in its usual and ordinary sense. The' instant case is an “action” within such meaning. “Any” and “all” have been described as the most comprehensive words in the English language. Hamilton Fire Insurance Co. v. Cervantes, Mo.App., 278 S.W.2d 20, 24 [4]; Baker v. Brown’s Estate, 365 Mo. 1159, 294 S.W.2d 22, 25 [4], The terms “any action” and “all actions” admit of no apparent exceptions.
General statutes of limitation apply alike to all civil actions whether legal or equitable. Sections 516.100—516. 140; Campbell v. Webb, 363 Mo. 1192, 258 S.W.2d 595, 599 [2]; Ludwig v. Scott, Mo., 65 S.W.2d 1034, 1035 [1], A suit in equity for a partnership accounting is subject to the general statutes of limitation. Coudrey v. Gilliam, 60 Mo. 86, 91; Barcus v. Cole, Mo.App., 250 S.W. 629, 630; Simmons v. Friday, 359 Mo. 812, 224 S.W.2d 90, 96 [13]. The essential question is whether the non-claim provisions of the probate code “supersede and take the place of the general statute of limitations” when such an action is directed against the representative of a decedent’s estate.
The validity of the nonclaim statutes has not been attacked. Our task is limited to determining the legislative intent; that is, whether the general assembly intended that the prosecution of this kind of action against the estate of the decedent would be barred if not instituted in the time and manner provided by the probate code.
The action is to recover a money judgment to he classified and paid out of the assets of the decedent’s estate. Sections 473.373 and 473.430. In a suit against an administrator to recover specific property belonging to the plaintiff, this court in Bramell v. Adams, 146 Mo. 70, 47 S.W. 931, 934, stated: “It is clear that if the result of this litigation is to be a general money judgment against the administrator, to be classified and paid out of the assets of the estate, plaintiffs’ suit comes too late. The fact that it was begun in the circuit court, and that the claim grew out of a trust fund, could not save it from the operation of the statute.”
The precise question here involved was decided in Helliker v. Bram, Mo., 277 S.W. *7452d 556, 558, wherein it was stated that the term all demands as used in the previous probate laws “should be held to include every species of liability which the personal representative can be called upon to pay out of the assets of the estate.” The Helli-ker decision affirmed the dismissal of a suit filed in the circuit court to recover damages for personal injuries and property loss against a decedent’s estate because the action was not filed within one year after the grant of letters. The opinion comments (unnecessarily we believe) that the framers of the constitution did not intend to confer “general equity jurisdiction or the right to adjudicate actions in tort” upon the probate courts, but in spite of this view the court held, 277 S.W.2d 561: “But, that does not mean that a cause of action in tort (which, when reduced to a judgment, becomes a debt payable out of the assets of the estate), should not be subject to the same limitations as any other form of demand allowable against the estate. Such a construction is permissible in view of the broad and all-inclusive language contained in Chapter 464, and is in accord with the public interest which is promoted by the prompt settlement of the estates of deceased persons.”
It will be noted that the present statutes are much broader in scope than the non-claim statutes in force when the Helliker case was decided (sections 464.020 to 464.-070, inclusive, RSMo 1949); among other differences, those statutes contained a saving provision to infants and persons of unsound mind or to persons imprisoned; there was no requirement of notice of suit, and no such provisions as the present section 473.360, subds. 1 and 2. Indeed the very method of consummating a claim has itself been changed. The present code expressly exempts some actions from the operation of the nonclaim provisions (section 473.-360), but we find no basis in the statutes or elsewhere to except the instant case.
A function of the probate courts is to marshal the assets of a deceased person, pay his debts out of the assets, and distribute the remainder among the beneficiaries of the estate. In order to file, classify, and pay money judgments adjudicated elsewhere, it hardly seems necessary for the probate courts to have jurisdiction to hear and determine such claims on the merits. But it does seem necessary if probate courts are to perform their functions properly that a reasonable provision be made as to the time and mode of establishing all of the obligations of the decedent’s estate.
In this case an adequate means for the determination of the merits of plaintiff’s right of action was available by a suit in the circuit court and we need not determine whether the probate court had concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine plaintiff’s cause of action if it had been filed as a claim in that court. Statutes of limitation generally operate upon claims or causes of action without regard to the forum in which the merits of the claim are to be determined.
It is wholly fallacious to hold (as some decisions appear to have done) that the limitation provisions of the probate code do not apply unless the probate court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim in question. It is unnecessary and unwise to place the decision in this case on the basis of the probate court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the merits of a claim such as this when there is not a case before us squarely presenting that issue. Therefore, we do not express any opinion as to the jurisdiction of the probate court to adjudicate a claim of this kind.
The nonclaim statutes of the probate code apply to the present action and it is barred because it was not filed within the time and manner provided by the non-claim statutes.
For the reasons given the judgment of dismissal is affirmed.
EAGER, J., concurs.