Court Opinion

ID: 9529099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:47:31.247238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:40.152358
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Moore
specially concurring in the result.
A petition for letters of administration was filed in the county court of Washington county in the matter of the estate of Clarence P. Haas, deceased. April 15, 1953, pursuant to the prayer of said petition, Paul H. Bates was appointed administrator, and on the same date he took the oath and furnished the required bond.
No notice to creditors was published prior to August 11, 1953, on which date a petition was filed asking the court to fix a date “on or before which claims shall be filed against said estate.” The court fixed October 26, 1953, as the last day for the filing of claims. Authority for this procedure is found in C.R.S. 1953, 152-12-4, wherein it is provided that where notice to creditors has *257not been published through inadvertence or error, the court may order publication thereof, and that, “such order shall fix the date on or before which claims shall be filed, not earlier than six months after the issuance of letters, nor earlier than thirty days after the first publication, nor later than six months after the first publication, * * * but claims filed after such date shall be barred.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case the ministerial acts, performed by the Clerk of the Court, of signing and delivering a document called “letters of administration,” were not performed until November 30, 1953.
December 23, 1953, the claim of Dorcas Jackson was filed. At the same time the Colorado Industrial Commission filed a claim which had been assigned to it by one Blanche McDonald. Under the language of the statute authorizing the court to fix a date for filing of claims, where publication of notice thereof has not been had, if the words “after the issuance of letters” should be construed to mean “after an administrator has been duly appointed and qualified,” then each of said claims is barred under the statute of “non-claims.” C.R.S. 1953, 152-12-12.
If the words “after the issuance of letters” can only be construed to mean “after the ministerial act of signing a paper evidencing the previous appointment of an administrator,” then the claims are not barred on account of late filing and they should be allowed or disallowed upon their merits.
It is clear to me that when the court appointed the administrator, administered the oath and approved the bond, there was an “issuance of letters” of administration within the meaning of the language of the statute. This being true, the claims were barred and the trial court was correct in dismissing them.
Mr. Justice Knauss authorizes me to state that he joins me in this specially concurring opinion.