Lead Opinion
{¶ 1} This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1. Appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals thе trial court’s decision that denied the state’s application to reopen an estate in order to file its claim for Medicaid reimbursement. After a review of thе record and applicable law, we affirm.
{¶ 2} The following facts give rise to this appeal.
{¶ 3} Josephine Centorbi (“decedent”) died intestate on February 12, 2007. On December 21, 2007, decedent’s sister, Diane Nancy Fiorille, filеd an application to relieve the estate from administration. The trial court granted the application the same day.
{¶ 4} On December 11, 2008, the state filed an аpplication to vacate the final accounting and reopen the estate. The trial court scheduled a hearing for January 20, 2009. The state failed to appear, and the petition was dismissed.
{¶ 5} On January 27, 2009, the state filed a second application to vacate the order releasing assets from administration.
{¶ 7} The state appealed, asserting one assignmеnt of error for our review:
Whether the probate court magistrate committed reversible error by denying appellant’s objections to magistrate’s decision which dеnied appellant’s application to vacate final accounting and reopen estate based upon its interpretation of Ohio Revised Code 2117.061.
{¶ 8} The state argues that the one-year statute of limitations to file a claim against an estate pursuant to R.C. 2117.061 did not begin to run and, in the alternative, if the time has now expired, the one-year statute of limitations does not apply. However, after a review of the applicable law, we disagree.
{¶ 9} The state alleges that the decedent was a Medicaid recipient. The individual responsible for an estate must, pursuant to R.C. 2117.061(B)(3), complete a Medicaid estate-recovery form within 30 days of filing an application to relieve the estate from administration. On the application, to relieve the estate from administration, the applicant must check thе box that indicates that the “[djecedent was 55 years of age or older at the time of death and was a recipient of medical assistance under Chapter 5111 оf the Revised Code.” This language may have been confusing to the decedent’s sister, who filed the application without an attorney. It is undisputed that the box was not checked and that the Medicaid estate-recovery form was never completed.
{¶ 10} The state argues that because the form was never completed, the statutе of limitations has not been triggered. However, this interpretation contradicts the clear language of the statute. “When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning,” this court does not need to interpret the statute. Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smyth (2000),
{¶ 11} The pertinent portion of R.C. 2117.061(E) in effect at the time of the decеdent’s death, detailing the time limitations for filing a claim against an estate, states:
The administrator of the Medicaid estate recovery program shall present a сlaim for estate recovery to the person responsible for the estate of the decedent or the person’s legal representative not later than ninety days after the date on which the Medicaid estate recovery reporting form is received under division (B) of this section or one year after the decedent’s death, whichever is later.
{¶ 13} The decedent died on February 12, 2007. The state did not file its first application to reopen the estate until December 11, 2008, nearly ten months beyond the one-year statute of limitations. Thе application was dismissed by the trial court. The state filed its second application to reopen the estate on January 27, 2009, nearly two years after the dеcedent’s death, and almost a year beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Clearly, the application was not timely filed.
{¶ 14} The state further argues that even if the one-year statute of limitations applied, despite the Medicaid estate-recovery form not being completed, statutes of limitation are inapplicable to the state unless the statute specifically provides that the time limitation applies to the state.
{¶ 15} The state urges this court to adopt the ratiоnale in a factually similar Ninth District case, Ohio Dept. of Human Serv. v. Eastman (2001),
{¶ 16} As the basis for its decision, Eastman relied on the well-establishеd principle outlined in Ohio Dept. of Transp. v. Sullivan (1988),
{¶ 17} We find the state’s reliance on Eastman misplaced. In Eastman, R.C. 2117.06(B) was the statute at issue and stated that “[a]ll claims shall be presented within one year after the death of the decedent.” The statute clearly failed to specifically limit the state’s time to file a claim; therefore, pursuant tо Sullivan, as a generally worded statute, it was inapplicable to the state.
{¶ 18} However, the statute at issue in the instant case is the version of R.C. 2117.061(E) in effect at the time of thе decedent’s death in 2007, which unlike R.C. 2117.06(B) at issue in Eastman, does not provide a general one-year time limitation; rather, it provides a one-year time limitation specifically for the “administrator of the Medicaid estate recovery program.” The goal of the statutory scheme governing claims against an estate is to efficiently and expedi
{¶ 19} Therefore, the state’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. Although this application was titled slightly different from the previously filed application, the two applications were nearly identical аnd cited the same case law.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
{¶ 20} I respectfully dissent from the majority view that R.C. 2117.061(E) clearly imposes a maximum period of one year from the date of decedent’s death for the state to file a claim against the estate. The majority view would allow a representative of a decedent’s estate to intentionally not fill out a Medicaid estate-recovery form, and by failing to do so, to retain an undeserved windfall upon the expiration of one year from the date of decedent’s dеath.
{¶ 21} It is clear that R.C. 2117.061(E) is written in the alternative. A claim must be made within 90 days from the date a completed form is received or within one year following decedent’s death, with the deciding option being “whichever is later.”
{¶ 22} Because a completed Medicaid estate-recovery form was never received by the state, the provision requiring a claim within one year of decedent’s death resolves only half the puzzle. In order for the 90-day clock to run on the first option, the form must actually be receivеd. Since it was not, I cannot find that the lapse of one year from the date of decedent’s death alone satisfies the requirement that this option is the one that occurred later.