Court Opinion

ID: 9378418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:04:39.293188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.915199
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 3, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals

                             NO. 2022-CA-0173-MR

DELORIS PETERSON                                                     APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM BALLARD CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE TIMOTHY A. LANGFORD, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 20-CI-00032

ESTATE OF CHARLES DENNIS,
KAY ALVEY, ADMINISTRATRIX                                              APPELLEE

                                    OPINION
                                   AFFIRMING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, Deloris Peterson, appeals from a judgment of the

Ballard Circuit Court dismissing with prejudice her claim against the Estate of

Charles Dennis, Kay Alvey, Administratrix, Appellee. After our review, we

affirm.

            Charles Dennis was the brother-in-law of the Appellant, Deloris

Peterson (Deloris). Charles was married to Deloris’s sister, Ruanna; Ruanna died
on August 1, 2019. Deloris was appointed Executrix of Ruanna’s Estate on August

27, 2019. Charles died a few months later on December 2, 2019.

             On April 28, 2020, Deloris, individually, filed a verified petition in

Ballard Circuit Court against the Estate of Charles Dennis, Kay Alvey,

Administratrix. Deloris alleged that she had paid for Ruanna’s funeral, burial, and

headstone “along with other bills.” She reported that Ruanna and Charles had

shared bank accounts and that “[a]t the time of death, the funds were held by

Charles Dennis. . . . [who] was in a nursing home and unable [to] participate in the

estate of his wife nor financials matters [sic] that needed tending to.” Deloris

sought to restrain the Administratrix from making further distribution and division

of Charles’s Estate “pending disposition of this cause.” She sought attorney fees,

costs, and all other relief to which she might be entitled. Charles’s Estate filed a

verified answer on May 15, 2020.

             Although other pleadings have been filed in this case, they are not

relevant to or dispositive of the narrow issue before us. Therefore, we limit our

discussion of the record accordingly.

             The trial court conducted a final hearing by Zoom on October 27,

2021. Deloris claimed that she was owed $9,501.15 for the monument for her

sister, some lawyer’s fees, and travel expenses that she expended in the case of her

sister. On cross-examination, Deloris acknowledged that when she filed the

                                          -2-
petition to probate Ruanna’s will, she did not tell the court that Ruanna owed her

(Deloris) any money. When asked if she had ever filed a claim against the Estate

of Ruanna Dennis for the monies that were allegedly owed to her, Deloris

responded, “No.”

             On January 14, 2022, the trial court entered judgment dismissing

Deloris’ claim with prejudice as follows in relevant part:

                   6. The Plaintiff, Deloris Peterson, . . . had been
             appointed as Executrix of the Estate of Ruanna Dennis on
             August 27, 2019. She is now claiming that she has a
             claim against Charles Dennis’ Estate because she took
             care of Ruanna Dennis during her life.

                   7. The Court finds that the Plaintiff, Deloris
             Peterson, in her Petition to be appointed Executrix of the
             Estate of Ruanna Dennis, failed to disclose and swore
             under oath that she was not owed money by Ruanna
             Dennis.

                   8. The Court also finds that Deloris Peterson,
             individually, never filed a claim against the Estate of
             Ruanna Dennis and that it has been over two years since
             she was appointed Executrix.

                   ...

                   12. The Court finds that there were ample assets in
             the Estate of Ruanna Dennis to pay the claim, if there
             was a valid claim, and Deloris Peterson was the
             Executrix and could have done so with District Court
             review & approval. It stretches the imagination that she
             had control of all of the assets and failed to pay herself
             but would sue the Estate of Charles Dennis to get money
             from his [E]state.

                                         -3-
The trial court found that Deloris’s claim for taking care of her sister would indeed

have been a claim against Ruanna’s Estate -- but that no claim had been made

based upon the record in the Ballard District Court Case, No. 19-P-00052, and as

confirmed by Deloris’s testimony. The court correctly applied KRS1 396.011(1),

which provides as follows:

                (1) All claims against a decedent’s estate which arose
                before the death of the decedent, excluding claims of the
                United States, the State of Kentucky and any subdivision
                thereof, whether due or to become due, absolute or
                contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, founded on
                contract, tort, or other legal basis, if not barred earlier by
                other statute of limitations, are barred against the estate,
                the personal representative, and the heirs and devisees,
                unless presented within six (6) months after the
                appointment of the personal representative, or where no
                personal representative has been appointed, within two
                (2) years after the decedent’s death.

                  The trial court explained that Deloris “could not file an action

against anyone” until she had first presented a claim in accordance with KRS

396.035 and KRS 396.015. The trial court also found that Deloris had failed to

present a claim against Charles’s Estate as the statutes require. Consequently, the

trial court concluded that Deloris lacked standing and dismissed her claim with

prejudice.

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes.

                                             -4-
             Deloris appeals, contending that the trial court erred in finding that

she did not have standing to file suit against the Estate of Charles Dennis. Deloris

has not challenged the trial court’s factual findings. Thus, the issue before us is

whether the trial court erred in its application of the law.

             As did the trial court, we conclude that KRS 396.035 is dispositive.

Entitled, “Limitation on commencement of action on claim[,]” that statute

mandates as follows: “No action shall be brought against a personal representative

on a claim against decedent’s estate unless the claimant shall have first presented

his claim in the manner described in KRS 396.015.” KRS 396.015 sets forth

elements of presenting a claim:

             Claims against a decedent’s estate shall be presented as
             follows:

             (1) The claimant may deliver or mail to the personal
                representative a written statement of the claim
                indicating its basis, the name and address of the
                claimant, and the amount claimed, or may file a
                written statement of the claim, in the form prescribed
                by rule, with the clerk of the court.

             The requirements governing presentation of claims contained in KRS

396.035 and KRS 396.015(1) are statutory prerequisites to filing an action.

Underwood v. Underwood, 999 S.W.2d 716, 720 (Ky. App. 1999). “A prospective

plaintiff must satisfy the statutory prerequisites to filing an action against an estate.

A failure to fulfil these requirements will deprive the plaintiff of the right to bring

                                           -5-
an action against the estate . . . .” Id. It is undisputed that Deloris failed to present

a claim against Charles’s Estate in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Accordingly, she had no right to file the action at issue, and the trial court did not

err in dismissing it.

             We affirm the judgment of the Ballard Circuit Court entered on

January 14, 2022.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                        BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 Heather L. Jones                            Daniel C. Thomas
 Paducah, Kentucky                           Wickliffe, Kentucky

                                           -6-