In the Matter of the Estate of John A. Gaytan, Deceased, ___ Mich App___ (1998) #205273, 10-27-98
Return to Probate Review MenuPetitioner sought to recover attorney fees in the amount of $50,400 from the estate for services he claimed to have rendered on behalf of the decedent, John A. Gayton, prior to his death. A claim was properly filed on August 20, 1993. On November 3, 1993, personal representative served petitioner with a notice of disallowance of his claim. Petitioner then petitioned the probate court for an order requiring the estate to pay his claim on the grounds that his claim was allowed by operation of law pursuant to MCL 700.717(1); MSA 27.5717(1) because the notice of disallowance was not filed within the 63 days required by the statute. The probate court agreed and ordered the estate to pay the claim.
Subsequently a motion was filed for reconsideration on the grounds that good cause existed to excuse the delay. The probate court conducted a hearing and concluded that good cause existed to excuse the untimeliness of the notice of disallowance. The probate court ruled later that the claim need not be paid on several grounds. Petitioner appealed that decision on the sole grounds that no good cause existed to excuse the untimely notice of disallowance.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court but on a ground other than that which the probate court based its decision. They noted that the notice of disallowance was untimely by two days and the effect of this under MCL 700.717(1); MSA 27.5717(1) was that the claim was deemed allowed by operation of law. They then pointed out that this section also provides, "If, after allowing or disallowing a claim the personal representative changes a decision concerning the claim, the personal representative shall notify the claimant." They concluded that MCL 700.717(1); MSA 27.5717(1) permits a claim that has been deemed allowed as a consequence of the personal representative's failing to disallow it within the statutory period to be disallowed subsequently by the personal representative. Therefore, they held that the untimely notice of disallowance operates as a proper notice of change of decision by the personal representative.
This decision makes it clear that a personal representative may change
the decision concerning the allowance or disallowance of a claim.
It is clear that this was the intent of the drafters of this provision
which was taken from the Uniformed Probate Code. In a footnote concerning
this section in the Uniform Probate Code it is stated:
"The Courts and lawyers in UPC states have differed regarding the ability of a personal representative to change an allowed claim to a disallowed claim after 60 days from the original presentation of the claim. The intention of the drafters was to permit a personal representative to change his position regarding an allowed claim, thereby starting the 60-day period within which the claimant may protest the claim classification by commencing a court proceeding on the claim. The drafters considered that the allowance by inaction called for by the last sentence of (a), like an allowance by written notice, could be changed as is clearly stated by the second and third sentences. Otherwise, allowance by inaction can serve as a terrible trap for a personal representative."Top of Page
Return to Calhoun County Courts Homepage
Last updated 11-18-98
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 or
e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov