320 P.3d 316
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Eloise Garbareno submitted a creditor claim (~$146,000) against Richard Snure’s estate in summer 2009 and gave the estate her contact information.
- In May 2010 the personal representative mailed a "Notice of Disallowance" to Garbareno by certified mail; the certified letter was returned "unclaimed."
- Garbareno did not learn of the disallowance until October 12, 2012. She filed a petition for a hearing on November 30, 2012.
- The superior court dismissed her petition under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred; Garbareno appealed.
- The Court of Appeals assumed the petition facts as true, addressed due process adequacy of the notice, and considered the statutory scheme for disallowance notices and claim-bar deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mailed notice of disallowance satisfied due process | Garbareno: certified-mail notice returned unclaimed was constitutionally inadequate because the estate knew it failed to reach her and should have taken additional steps | Estate: certified mail is reasonably calculated to provide notice (Mullane) and satisfied due process | Court: Notice was insufficient under Jones v. Flowers when certified mail is returned unclaimed and the sender knows it — additional reasonable steps were required |
| Effect of insufficient notice on statute-of-limitations for filing a petition | Garbareno: because she lacked effective notice, the 60-day period had not begun until she actually received notice (Oct. 12, 2012), so her petition was timely | Estate: compliance with statutory "mail a notice" requirement (A.R.S. § 14-3806(A)) discharged its obligations; filing in superior court put her on constructive notice | Court: Statutory mailing form was met, but due process required effective notice; because Garbareno received actual notice on Oct. 12, 2012, the 60-day period began then and her petition was timely |
| Whether statutory remedy (deemed allowed) applies when mailing method is noncompliant | Garbareno: claim should be deemed allowed under statute if estate failed to mail notice properly | Estate: it complied with the statute by mailing the notice; no statutory violation | Court: No facial statutory violation found; remedy is to provide due process (actual notice and hearing), not automatic allowance in these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (when certified mail is returned unclaimed and sender knows, additional reasonable steps are required to satisfy due process)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform those affected)
- Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (creditor’s claim against an estate is a protected property interest triggering due process)
- Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County, 212 Ariz. 351 (App. 2006) (standard of review for constitutional claims reviewed de novo)
- Yi Tu v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 470 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2006) (agency notice by certified mail insufficient where sender had reason to know it did not reach recipient)
- In re Estate of Evans, 901 P.2d 1138 (Alaska 1995) (rejecting argument that constructive or inquiry notice suffices when actual notice is required)