AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Margaret Patterson sought reimbursement from the estate of Lucy C. Romero. At the time of her initial attempt to assert her claim, no personal representative for the estate had been appointed. Patterson attempted to file a motion for her claim through a non-attorney, which was not accepted by the court. Subsequently, Florinda Ruiz was appointed as the personal representative of the estate, and Patterson then filed her motion directly with the court. Ruiz disallowed Patterson's claim, and Patterson did not challenge this disallowance within the sixty-day period required by the probate code, instead requesting a hearing five months later.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Claimant-Appellant: Argued that her claim for reimbursement was valid and should have been considered despite the initial procedural misstep of attempting to file through a non-attorney and the subsequent delay in challenging the personal representative's disallowance of her claim.
• Personal Representative-Appellee: Disallowed the claimant's request for reimbursement and maintained that the claimant's failure to challenge this disallowance within the required sixty-day period rendered the claim invalid.

Legal Issues

• Whether a claim for reimbursement against an estate can be asserted by presenting it to a person who later becomes the personal representative of the estate, in the absence of a formally appointed personal representative at the time of the claim.
• Whether the claimant's failure to challenge the personal representative's disallowance of her claim within the sixty-day period required by the probate code precludes her from seeking reimbursement.

Disposition

• The district court's order denying Patterson's motion for reimbursement was affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Zachary A. Ives, Megan P. Duffy, and Shammara H. Henderson, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Patterson's initial attempt to assert her claim through a non-attorney was invalid because claims against an estate must be filed with the court when no personal representative is appointed. Once Ruiz was appointed as the personal representative and Patterson filed her motion with the court, her claim was properly before the personal representative. However, Patterson's failure to challenge the disallowance of her claim within the sixty-day period required by the probate code was fatal to her case. The court emphasized the importance of timely and final resolution of disputes involving estates, which necessitates strict adherence to procedural deadlines set forth in the probate code (paras 2-7).