Estate of Austin v. Snead
2013 Mo. LEXIS 7
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Decedent died in 2009; personal representative did not notify two minor victims of alleged 2006 sexual abuse; DFS substantiated the allegations in 2006; first notice to creditors published Aug 26, 2009; father as guardian filed claims eight months later, outside 6-month window; claims dismissed as untimely under section 473.360; court found due process vitiated by lack of actual notice to reasonably ascertainable creditors; court reversed and remanded; claims not barred by 473.360 due to lack of notice; Snead investigated potential claims but did not notify the children; the estate faced substanial factual basis for the claims not being conjectural; open questions about whether the claims are colorable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires actual notice to reasonably ascertainable creditors | Father | Snead | Yes; due process requires actual notice to reasonably ascertainable creditors. |
| Whether the children’s claims were more than conjectural and thus entitled to notice | Claims were supported by 2006 DFS finding | Claims were based on conjecture | Yes; claims were more than conjectural and rights to notice attach. |
| Whether the six-month bar of 473.360 applies given lack of notice | Bar should not apply due to lack of notice | Bar applies regardless of notice | No; dismissal improper because notice was deficient. |
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the claims on other grounds | Dismissal grounds inadequate | Pleadings insufficient | Yes; dismissal reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to reach interested parties; actual notice if reasonably ascertainable)
- Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1988) (creditor notice requires reasonable diligent efforts by personal representative)
- Bohannon, 943 S.W.2d 651 (Mo. banc 1997) (failure to provide known/ascertainable creditors with notice violates due process)
- American Home Assurance Co. v. Gaylor, 894 So.2d 656 (Ala. 2004) (underlying facts may obligate inquiry to locate potential claims; notice required for ascertainable creditors)
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (creditor rights protected by due process; ascertainability matters)