In Re Estate of Van Der Zee
228 Ariz. 257
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Siebe Van Der Zee, a known creditor, filed a claim against Regina Van Der Zee's estate for $60,000 and $3,000 plus return of personal items after a decree required insurance and payments to Siebe.
- Regina and Siebe were married (1983–1997); at dissolution Siebe loaned $80,000, with $60,000 remaining due.
- The dissolution decree directed Regina to obtain a $60,000 life insurance policy for Siebe's benefit and to return Siebe's items and pay $3,000 within five years.
- Regina died January 26, 2006; Charity Cunio was appointed personal representative and published notice to creditors but did not notify Siebe in writing.
- Siebe presented his claim on May 12, 2006; Cunio denied $60,000 on August 2, 2006; other asserted claims were not at issue.
- Siebe filed suit January 9, 2007; the superior court initially granted summary judgment but later vacated it; after trial, the court held the claim time-barred and not proven, and found no bad-faith denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Siebe's complaint under 14-3806(A) | Siebe argues timely under notice and two-year rule. | Estate contends sixty-day limit controls after disallowance. | Sixty-day period controls; complaint time-barred. |
| Effect of a known creditor and notice on 2-year period | Two-year window applies to known creditors with missing written notice. | Two-year window may be superseded by nonclaim statute §14-3806(A). | Two-year period does not override sixty-day nonclaim statute; §14-3806(A) applies. |
| Application of §14-3803(A)(1) with §14-3806(A) | §14-3803(A)(1) provides at least two years to file if not barred by earlier statute. | §14-3806(A) is a nonclaim statute and tolling does not apply; the claim was time-barred. | §14-3803(A)(1) does not override the sixty-day limit; the claim is time-barred. |
| Bad-faith denial by personal representative | Claim denial could be in bad faith and toll the period. | Denial was reasonable based on lack of clear entitlement. | No bad faith found; denial supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Kopely, 159 Ariz. 391 (App. 1988) (creditor known/ascertainable status for filing)
- Lowry v. Crandall, 52 Ariz. 501 (1938) (nonclaim statute applicability and timing after denial)
- Barnett v. Hitching Post Lodge, Inc., 101 Ariz. 488 (1966) (earlier version of nonclaim/statutory timing rules)
- In re Estate of Pouser, 193 Ariz. 574 (1999) (standard for reviewing trial court's findings of fact)