GUERRA v. STARNES
379 P.3d 438
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- Guerra sued real estate agent B. Gail Starnes in Wagoner County for claims arising from a real estate transaction; Starnes answered the suit.
- Starnes died; counsel filed a suggestion of death in the pending tort case and her executor opened probate in Tulsa County.
- No formal proof of claim was submitted to the estate under 58 O.S. § 331; the estate did not mail actual notice to Guerra.
- Guerra filed a motion to substitute the personal representative as defendant within 90 days after a statutorily compliant suggestion of death was filed.
- The probate court allowed distribution and discharge (then briefly vacated and reinstated); the district court ruled Guerra’s suit was barred for failure to file a claim with the estate under the non-claim statute.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding timely substitution preserved the pending suit and § 331 did not require filing a creditor’s claim to preserve a pending action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff with a suit pending at defendant's death must file a proof of claim under 58 O.S. § 331 to preserve the suit | Guerra: No — she did not get constitutionally adequate notice and she preserved the suit by timely substituting the personal representative | Estate: Yes — non-claim provisions bar recovery unless a claim is filed within the statutory period; contract-related claims especially must be presented | Held: No. Repeal/amendments to statutes mean substitution under 12 O.S. § 2025 (90 days after suggestion of death) preserves pending suits; § 331 claim-filing is not required |
| Whether lack of mailed actual notice to a known creditor bars the claim under the non-claim statute | Guerra: Lack of actual notice prevents § 331 bar ( Tulsa Prof’l Collection Servs. v. Pope establishes requirement) | Estate: Publication notice suffices or claim should be barred | Held: Known creditors are entitled to actual notice; publication alone is insufficient — but court concluded § 331 claim process does not control pending suits preserved by substitution |
| Whether the 90‑day substitution rule conflicts with the 60‑day non‑claim period and practical effect on estate closure | Guerra: Substitution within 90 days preserves the action and is the practical mechanism for resolving claims | Estate: Potential timing conflict could allow estate closure before substitution | Held: No practical conflict — estates generally cannot be fully closed within 90 days; substitution regime harmonizes with probate policy |
| Whether contract-based claims must be treated differently and still be presented under 58 O.S. § 333 | Estate: Contract claims are governed by § 333 and must be presented under the non-claim process | Guerra: The pending suit is not categorically subject to § 333 and is preserved by substitution | Held: § 2025 controls pending suits; characterizing the claim as contractual does not change the substitution requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Tulsa Prof’l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (publication notice to known, reasonably ascertainable creditors is constitutionally insufficient)
- State ex rel. Cent. State Griffin Mem’l Hosp. v. Reed, 493 P.2d 815 (Okla. 1972) (discussing legislative intent to expedite estate administration and non-claim statutes)
- Matter of Estate of Vann, 925 P.2d 80 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996) (recorded judgment created reasonably ascertainable creditor entitled to written notice)
- Villines v. Szczepanski, 122 P.3d 466 (Okla. 2005) (filing of a foreign judgment made creditor reasonably ascertainable for notice purposes)
- In re Estate of Holcomb, 63 P.3d 9 (Okla. 2002) (probate proceedings are equitable; standard of appellate review discussed)