Ader v. Estate of Felger
240 Ariz. 32
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Ader invested with Dan Felger in commercial properties beginning in 1974; Felger created LLCs holding the properties and the Felger Family Trust held membership interests. Dan Felger died in November 2010.
- Ader stopped receiving payments on two properties within two years after Felger’s death and filed suit in January 2014 against multiple defendants, including the Estate of Dan Felger and Carolyn Felger, asserting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and related claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Ader’s claims against the Estate arose before death and are barred by Arizona’s nonclaim statute (A.R.S. § 14-3803) because no probate was opened within two years of death.
- Ader sought additional discovery under Rule 56(f) to investigate trusts, funding, and financial records; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied a new-trial motion. Ader appealed.
- The central legal questions concerned (1) whether claims “arose” before or after death under § 14-3803 (and whether the discovery rule applies), and (2) how § 14-3108’s two-year ultimate time limit on commencing probate affects presentation of claims when no personal representative was appointed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying Rule 56(f) discovery | Ader needed additional discovery on trusts and transactions to oppose summary judgment | The statute-of-limitations issue is a pure legal question; requested discovery would not affect the legal timeliness issue | No abuse of discretion; discovery unnecessary because the question was one of law |
| Whether A.R.S. § 14-3803(A) or (C) governs Ader’s claims (i.e., whether claims "arose" before death) | Ader argued she did not discover the claims until after Felger’s death, so § 14-3803(C) (post-death claims) or the discovery rule should apply | Defendants argued claims are based on pre-death conduct and thus § 14-3803(A) applies | § 14-3803(A) applies: "arise" means originate (decedent’s conduct), not when plaintiff discovered the claim; discovery rule does not apply to the nonclaim statute |
| Effect of § 14-3108 two-year limit when no personal representative was appointed | Ader argued she should be allowed to present claims once discovered and that late probate shouldn’t bar claims | Defendants argued § 14-3108 limits appointment of personal representative to two years and, if late probate is permitted, claims other than expenses of administration cannot be presented | § 14-3108(4) applies: if no probate was opened within two years, most creditor claims (other than expenses of administration) cannot be presented; combined with § 14-3803(A), Ader’s claims are time-barred |
| Personal jurisdiction / new trial argument over entering judgment for the Estate | Ader argued the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Estate (an improper party) and judgment was void; sought new trial | Defendants relied on Rule 17 principles and asserted naming issues don’t defeat jurisdiction and late substitution would be futile given § 14-3108 | Court had jurisdiction over civil claims; improper naming doesn’t defeat jurisdiction; denial of new trial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Delo v. GMAC Mortg., L.L.C., 232 Ariz. 133 (App. 2013) (summary-judgment standards and viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Montano v. Browning, 202 Ariz. 544 (App. 2002) (statute-of-limitations and accrual are questions of law)
- Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 182 Ariz. 586 (1995) (discovery rule and accrual of causes of action)
- In re Estate of Winn, 214 Ariz. 149 (2007) (interpretation of probate statutes and policy of efficient administration)
- In re Estate of Van Der Zee, 228 Ariz. 257 (App. 2011) (distinguishing nonclaim statutes from statutes of limitations)
- ELM Ret. Ctr., LP v. Callaway, 226 Ariz. 287 (App. 2010) (discussing discovery rule tolling)
- In re Estate of Baca, 984 P.2d 782 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (tardy probate proceedings under Uniform Probate Code and limiting claims in late proceedings)