Massey v. Fulks, 376 S.W.3d 389

Massey appeals a summary-judgment ruling that his Estate claim was barred by the statute of non-claim.
The Estate argued under 28-50-101(a)(2) and (h) that known/ascertainable creditors were barred after two years if not given actual notice.
Massey contends he was a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor entitled to actual notice under 28-40-111(a)(4)(A).
He filed suit in circuit court within the non-claim period (Feb. 2008) and later sought relief under the two-year extension when notice was lacking.
Dodson v. Charter Behavioral Health System was invoked by the Estate; Spears and Brasel provide related precursors on notice and non-claim extensions.
The court reverses the circuit court and vacates the Court of Appeals’ affirmance, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 28-50-101(h) extends the non-claim period by two years when actual notice is not given.	Massey argues he was a known creditor and entitled to a two-year extension.	Estate contends Dodson controls and no two-year extension applies.	Yes; the two-year extension applies.
Whether Massey was a known creditor during the non-claim period due to timely filing and service.	Massey was identified as a creditor within the non-claim period and thus entitled to notice.	Estate contends identification alone does not equate to entitlement to extension.	Massey was a known creditor with right to actual notice.
Whether Dodson should be overturned or treated as controlling on the notice-extension issue.	Dodson should be overruled as inconsistent with statutory interpretation.	Dodson remains controlling on the specific issue decided therein.	Dodson is not overruled; it did not decide the notice-extension question.
Whether the summary-judgment ruling was proper in light of the extension.	The claim was not barred due to the two-year extension.	Without extension, the claim would be barred.	Summary judgment reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

In re Estate of Spears, 314 Ark. 54 (Ark. 1993) (recognizes limits of non-claim period and notice considerations)
Brasel v. Estate of Harp, 317 Ark. 379 (Ark. 1994) (not a reasonably ascertainable creditor; two-year extension not available)
Dodson v. Charter Behavioral Health System of Northwest Arkansas, Inc., 335 Ark. 96 (Ark. 1998) (filing in circuit court not equivalent to filing a probate claim; notice extension not addressed there)