Summary 2007 WY 63

Summary of Decision issued April 13, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Estate of Frost: Frost Construction Company v. Dodson, Co-Personal representative of Estate of James T. Frost

Citation: 2007 WY 63

Docket Number: 06-169

Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County, the Honorable Hunter Patrick, Judge

Representing Appellants (Petitioner): T. Thomas Singer of Axilon Law Group, Billings, Montana.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Marc C. Thompson of Webster & Thompson, LLC, Cody, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying a claim that was timely asserted against the Estate solely because no affidavit accompanied the claim. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the claimant had failed to plead a constructive trust theory.

Facts/Discussion: The appeal concerns the interpretation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-7-704 and 2-7-712. In construing these statutes, the district court held that any claim filed against a probate estate must have an attached affidavit. As to the instant case, the court concluded that because there was no affidavit filed, the claim must be considered invalid and barred as if no claim had been filed.
Standard of Review: The determinative issue is a question of law concerning the construction of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-7-704.
Failure to File an Attached Affidavit: The creditor’s claim submitted against the Estate on behalf of the Company was dismissed for failure to file an attached affidavit. The dismissal required a strict interpretation of § 2-7-704(a). Dodson relied on the first sentence of the subsection but failed to incorporate the second sentence of subsection (a) which governed the case. The Claim filed by the Company was contingent on the Company establishing its equitable claims and was not a “claim which is due.” The Court compared their interpretation of the previous statute Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-222 and the current version noted above. The current version is substantially similar to its predecessor. However, the Court concluded the particulars may be set forth within the claim as opposed to an affidavit which is consistent with the long-time policy behind such claim requirements. The particulars are clearly set forth in the Claim Against Estate filed on June 18, 2003. Enough information was provided in the Company’s claim to sufficiently challenge the attention of the personal representative and enable him to act advisedly in the exercise of his discretion, subject to the right to require additional proof of the claim.
Failure to State a Proper Theory for Recovery: The district court found fault in the Company’s failure to plead the constructive trust theory with specificity. Dodson relied on W.R.C.P. 8(a). The Court stated that nothing in the Wyoming Probate Code, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-1-101 et seq., or Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-7-703 or 704 required a claimant to state the particular legal theories upon which the claim was based or to specify the evidence upon which the claim rested. The Court found no reason to deviate from the requirements set forth by the legislature.
The executor has the ability to request further information to clarify the claim. The executor in the instant case made no such request. If the executor was not satisfied with or was confused by the facts laid out in the Company’s claim, it was her burden to request additional particulars.

Holding: The district court erred in rejecting the Company’s claim due solely to its failure to file an attached affidavit, which was not required under these circumstances. The district court also erred by rejecting the Company’s constructive trust theory. The Court reversed the order of the district court and remanded for appropriate action.

Reversed and remanded.

Dist. J. Waldrip delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2b8wnw .