Brief Fact Summary. Appellant, personal representative of the estate at issue (Appellant), seeks review of an order from the lower court that granted an extension to Appellee Creditors (Appellees) for filing a claim against an estate.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a creditor’s claim is contingent, then that creditor is not entitled to actual notice of a claim’s period.
If appellant's identity as a creditor was known or reasonably ascertainable, then the Due Process Clause requires that appellant be given notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice.View Full Point of Law
Issue. If a creditor’s claim is contingent, then is that creditor not entitled to actual notice of a claim’s period?
Held. Yes. If a creditor’s claim is contingent, then that creditor is not entitled to actual notice of a claim’s period. Here, the creditor had to file a claim within 90 days after the publication notice. It is true that if a party’s identity as a creditor is ascertainable then that creditor must be given notice of the running of the non-claim period in order to satisfy due process. However, actual notice is only due to ascertainable creditors. Because the claims of Appellee were contingent, they were not entitled to actual notice. The claims of Appellee were contingent because they depended on the future happening of some future event which rendered the claim uncertain. The claim was not filed in a timely manner, and therefore the claim is barred.
Discussion. Creditor must simply be given a fair notice under the particular circumstances of the probate of an estate for a nonclaim statute.