Creditor’s Claims

            If a formal Creditor’s Claim does not meet specific procedural requirements and is not timely filed, the creditor is barred from bringing a civil action to enforce his or her claim against a decedent and a decedent’s estate.  California Probate Code[1] section 9351 provides, “An action may not be commenced against a decedent’s personal representative on a cause of action against the decedent unless a claim is first filed as provided in this party and the claim is rejected in whole or in part.”[2]  To conclusively establish the validity of a claim based upon a money judgment, the money judgment must be final and an abstract of judgment must be filed in the estate administration proceedings.[3] 

 Contents of a Creditor’s Claim

            The requirements for a valid Creditor’s Claim against a decedent’s estate are set forth in Probate Code sections 9000, et seq. 

           Probate Code section 9151 provides:

“(a) A claim shall be supported by the affidavit of the creditor or the person acting on behalf of the creditor stating:

(1) The claim is a just claim.

(2) If the claim is due, the facts supporting the claim, the amount of the claim, and that all payments on and offsets to the claim have been credited.

(3) If the claim is not due or contingent, or the amount is not yet ascertainable, the facts supporting the claim.

(4) If the affidavit is made by a person other than the creditor, the reason it is not made by the creditor.”[4]

            A creditor’s claim must “sufficiently indicate the nature and amount of the demand to enable the executor and judge in probate to act advisedly upon it.”[5]  If the claim is founded upon a promise or agreement to be paid for at the death of deceased, the claim should state as such.[6] 

            Probate Code section 9152(a) requires a Creditor’s Claim that is based on a written instrument to attach the written instrument to the Creditor’s Claim:

“If a claim is based on a written instrument, either the original or a copy of the original with all endorsements shall be attached to the claim.  If a copy is attached, the original instrument shall be exhibited to the personal representative or court or judge on demand unless it is lost or destroyed, in which case the fact that it is lost or destroyed shall be stated in the claim.”[7] 

Timing

            A Creditor’s Claim against a decedent’s Estate must be filed before expiration of the later of the following times: (1) Four (4) months after the date letters are first issued to a general personal representative; or (2) Sixty (60) days after the date notice of administration is mailed or personally delivered to the creditor.[8]

Amending a Creditor’s Claim

             A timely filed Creditor’s Claim that does not meet the specific procedural requirements regarding the contents of the Creditor’s Claim may be amended or revised.[9]  However, Probate Code section 9104(c) sets forth a strict statute of limitations for amendment of a creditor’s claim:

“(c) An amendment or revision may not be made for any purpose after the earlier of the following times:

(1)  The time the court makes an order for final distribution of the estate.

(2)  One year after letters are first issued to a general personal representative.  This paragraph does not extend the time provided by Section 366.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or authorize allowance or approval of a claim barred by that section.”[10]

The Legislature Justifies the Statute of Limitations as a Matter of Public Policy, Notwithstanding a Harsh Result.

            In Bradley v. Breen (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 798, victims of acts of child molestation, committed by a perpetrator who had since died, sued defendants for aiding and abetting the acts, and defendants asserted a cross-complaint against the deceased perpetrator’s estate for indemnification.[11]  However, the defendants failed to file a timely and valid creditor’s claim against the deceased perpetrator’s estate.  Therefore, the Court barred recovery against the deceased perpetrator’s estate.[12] 

            The Bradley Court held, “The Legislature has determined that the one-year statute of limitations will best effectuate the strong public policy of expeditious and final estate administration . . .  This court has neither the authority nor the inclination to substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature on such policy matters.  Our limited role in interpreting statutes is to follow the Legislature's intent as exhibited by the plain meaning of the statutory language, whatever we may think of the wisdom, expediency, or policy underlying the act.”[13]

            The Legislature has determined the statute of limitations to file a new creditor’s claim and to amend a creditor’s claim, and the Court must “follow the Legislature's intent as exhibited by the plain meaning of the statutory language, whatever [the Court] may think of the wisdom, expediency, or policy underlying the act.”[14] 

[1] All references to the Probate Code are to the California Probate Code.

[2] Probate Code § 9351

[3] Probate Code § 9301

[4] Probate Code § 9151

[5] Thompson v. Koeller (1920) 183 Cal. 476, 483

[6] Friel v. Rawlings (1928) 90 Cal.App. 220, 224

[7] Probate Code § 9152(a)

[8] Probate Code § 9100

[9] Probate Code § 9104(a)

[10] Probate Code § 9104(c)

[11] Bradley v. Breen (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 798

[12] Id.

[13] Bradley v. Breen, supra at 805-806

[14] Bradley v. Breen, supra at 805-806