Phillips v. Quick
731 S.E.2d 327
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Barnett died January 12, 2003; notice to creditors ran Feb–Mar 2003; Quick filed two creditor claims Dec 8, 2003 asserting UGMA gift and misappropriation; probate court allowed UGMA claim but denied interest; Phillips argued claim time-barred; probate court and circuit court held discovery rule extended time; SC Supreme Court reverses, holding discovery rule does not apply to nonclaim statute 62-3-803; claims are barred for filing more than nine months after first publication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UGMA claims are barred as nonclaims under 62-3-803 | Quick argues discovery extended time for filing. | Phillips argues 62-3-803 is a nonclaim statute with no discovery extension. | Yes; 62-3-803 is a nonclaim statute and claims are barred. |
| Whether the discovery rule applies to the probate nonclaim statute | Discovery rule should toll time when she learned of the claim. | Discovery rule does not apply to the nonclaim statute. | No; discovery rule does not apply to 62-3-803. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Tollison, 320 S.C. 132, 463 S.E.2d 611 (Ct.App.1995) (nonclaim statute; discovery rule not applicable to nonclaim statutes)
- Estate of Decker v. Farm Credit Servs. of Mid-Am., ACA, 684 N.E.2d 1137, 1139 (Ind.1997) (nonclaim statutes are mandatory; discovery-like extensions not allowed)
- Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wash.2d 660, 453 P.2d 631 (1969) (nonclaim statute silent on discovery rule; not enlargable)
- In re Estate of Watson, 21 Kan.App.2d 133, 896 P.2d 401 (Kan.App.1995) (discovery rule not extending nonclaim statute)
- Abba Equipment, Inc. v. Thomason, 335 S.C. 477, 517 S.E.2d 235 (Ct.App.1999) (recognizes limits of discovery rule applicability)