Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

within the prescribed time set out in the statute, no enforceable right of
action is created. The court reasoned that non-claim statutes are different
than general statutes of limitation. The former create a right of action if
commenced within the time prescribed by the statute, whereas the latter
create a defense to an action brought after the expiration of the time
allowed by law for the bringing of such an action. While equitable
principles, like the discovery rule, may extend the time for commencing
an action under statutes of limitation, non-claim statutes impose a
condition precedent to the enforcement of a right of action and are not
subject to equitable exceptions. Given that the discovery rule does not
extend to § 62-3-801, daughter’s claims are barred because they were not
timely filed.
S. Limitations on Presentation of Claims: 3-803; Manner of Presentation of
Claims: 3-804
1. In re Estate of Hamilton, 814 N.W.2d 141 (S.D. 2012). An extension
to collect from an estate may only be granted where there is first a
timely claim made against that estate. On the night of his death in
October 2009, decedent and his friend were drinking in decedent’s home.
The decedent put a gun to his head in a simulated game of Russian roulette
and accidentally killed himself. The friend witnessed decedent’s death
and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. On May 12,
2011, the friend sent a letter to the attorney for decedent’s estate,
requesting information in order to assess a potential claim against the
estate for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The
personal representative filed a verified statement for informal closing of
the estate on June 2, 2011, and informed the friend that all claims against
the estate were then bared under SDCL 29A-3-803. The friend filed a
petition to extend time to file a creditor’s claim against the estate under
SDCL 29A-3-804(c). Section 29A-3-804(c) provides that no proceeding
to obtain payment of a claim presented under subsection (a)(1) may be
commenced more than sixty days after the personal representative has
mailed or delivered notice of disallowance; but, in the case of a claim
which is not presently due or which is contingent or unliquidated, a sixtyday
extension period may be granted. The court held that an extension
under Section 29A-3-804(c) could not be granted here because that section
deals only with the timing for bringing suit to collect from an estate after a
claim has been denied; in order to be eligible for the extension, there must
first be a claim that was timely presented under Section 29A-3-803. The
friend here had not yet made a claim, so no extension may be granted.
T. Penalty Clause for Contest: 3-905
1. In re Estate of Stewart, 286 P.3d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). Under
Arizona law, an in terrorem clause was not invalid on statutory or
public policy grounds. The decedent died in an accident with his wife
15