In re Estate of Gates

[Cite as In re Estate of Gates, 2022-Ohio-1091.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN RE: ESTATE OF ANNIE M. GATES : JUDGES:
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
:
: Case No. 2021 CA 00105
:
: OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Probate Division, Case No.
240117
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 30, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant Carlesia Gates For Calandra Gates
TIMOTHY J. GALLAGHER GERALD BAKER
101 West Prospect Avenue 3711 Whipple Avenue, NW
Suite 1400 Canton, OH 44718
Cleveland, OH 44115
Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00105 2
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Carlesia Gates, appeals the September 16, 2021 judgment entry
of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Probate Division, denying her
application for allowance of claim against the estate.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} The decedent, Annie M. Gates, died intestate on September 14, 2020. The
decedent was survived by her two daughters, appellant and Calandra Gates. On June 3,
2021, appellant applied for authority to administer the decedent's estate. On August 3,
2021, the trial court appointed appellant as the administrator of the estate.
{¶ 3} On September 13, 2021, appellant filed an application for allowance of claim
against the estate in the amount of $35,010 pursuant to R.C. 2117.02. Appellant sought
reimbursement for repairs, improvements, and maintenance to decedent's property. By
judgment entry filed September 16, 2021, the trial court denied the application, finding the
application was untimely filed pursuant to R.C. 2117.06(B).
{¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶ 5} "THE PROBATE COURT INCORRECTLY DETERMINED THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S APPLICATION FOR PRESENTMENT OF CLAIM AGAINST [THE
ESTATE] WAS UNTIMELY."
II
{¶ 6} "THE PROBATE COURT INCORRECTLY CONSTRUED THE MORE
GENERAL STATUTE, R.C. 2117.06(B), AS OVERRULING THE MORE SPECIFIC
Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00105 3
STATUTE, R.C. 2117.02, THEREBY INCORRECTLY DETERMINING THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE WAS NOT TIMELY PRESENTED."
I
{¶ 7} In her first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court incorrectly
determined her application for allowance of claim against the estate was untimely. We
agree.
{¶ 8} We review this issue de novo. Estate of Curc, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2018-
T-0044, 2019-Ohio-416, ¶ 10. As explained by our colleagues from the Twelfth District
in State v. Hudkins, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-07-066, 2022-Ohio-249, ¶ 17:
The court's main objective in applying a statute is to "determine and
give effect to the legislative intent of the General Assembly as expressed in
the language it enacted." State v. Parker, 157 Ohio St.3d 460, 2019-Ohio-
3848, 137 N.E.3d 1151, ¶ 21. "If the language of the statute is plain and
unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, then there is no
need for this court to resort to the rules of statutory interpretation." Id., citing
State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391, 2006-Ohio-2706, 848 N.E.2d 496,
¶ 12. "When there is no ambiguity on the face of the statute, it must simply
be applied as written." State v. Jeffries, 160 Ohio St.3d 300, 2020-Ohio-
1539, 156 N.E.3d 859, ¶ 15.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2117.02 governs presentation of claim to probate court and states in
pertinent part: "An executor or administrator within three months after the date of
Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00105 4
appointment shall present any claim the executor or administrator has against the estate
to the probate court for allowance."
{¶ 10} R.C. 2117.06 governs procedure for the presentation and allowance of
creditor's claims. Subsection (B) states in pertinent part: "Except as provided in section
2117.061 of the Revised Code, all claims shall be presented within six months after the
death of the decedent, whether or not the estate is released from administration or an
executor or administrator is appointed during that six-month period." (Emphasis added
to reflect the trial court's emphasis on this language).
{¶ 11} In its September 16, 2021 judgment entry, the trial court emphasized the
language of R.C. 2117.06(B) as noted above, and found the application to be untimely as
it was filed almost a year after the decedent's death.
{¶ 12} Appellant argues the trial court "interpreted R.C. 2117.06 too broadly and
ignored the clear statutory distinction between claims belong[ing] to executors and
administrators under R.C. 2117.02, and claims belonging to any other creditors generally
under R.C. 2117.06." Appellant's Brief at 4. Appellant argues because she is the
administrator of the estate, pursuant to R.C. 2117.02, she had three months after the date
of her appointment to present her application for allowance of claim against the estate.
Because she presented her application some forty-one days after her appointment, her
claim was timely filed. For the following reasons, we agree.
{¶ 13} In the majority opinion in Curc, supra, 2019-Ohio-416, at ¶ 15-16, our
colleagues from the Eleventh District reasoned the following:
R.C 2117.02 governs claims by executors and administrators; R.C.
2117.06 governs claims by creditors. These are two specific groups of
Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00105 5
people and thus each are specific to a particular class of individuals. To be
sure, the former is a more narrow class than the latter, but they are
nevertheless two specific groups. Appellant, in this case, filed his claims as
an executor and, as such, he fits within the narrow class of individuals
enumerated under R.C. 2117.02.
We recognize that R.C. 2117.06 governs "all claims" and "all parties,"
without regard to who the creditor is or the nature of that creditor's claim.
Still, the "all claims" and "all parties" provisions specifically fall under the
rubric of a statute specifically designated to apply to "creditors." Were we
to read these universal pronouncements to include executors and
administrators, R.C. 2117.02 would be rendered inconsequential.
Observing the plain language of the statutes, "[i]t is clear * * * that the
legislature recognized that a claim by an executor against the estate he
represents must be processed differently from those of other creditors."
Wilhoit v. Estate of Powell, 70 Ohio App.2d 61, 62, 434 N.E.2d 742 (12th
Dist.1980). Given this difference, the fact that a party is a creditor of a
decedent upon his or her death, does not negate the effect and import of
R.C. 2117.02 if an estate is open and that former creditor is appointed
executor and his or her claims are properly leveled against the estate. Upon
such appointment, R.C. 2117.02 vouchsafes additional privileges to a party
appointed executor; privileges that may have been long extinguished to an
ordinary creditor by operation of R.C. 2117.06.
Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00105 6
{¶ 14} In a dissenting opinion, Judge Diane V. Grendell reasoned the following at
¶ 23:
The majority's position that claims forever barred as to all parties
may be resurrected if the creditor is fortunate enough to have himself
appointed administrator of the debtor estate is unsupported by law or other
authority. Such a ruling would surely be an incentive for disenfranchised
creditors to seek appointment as special administrators as a way of
obtaining the privilege of reviving claims allowed to lapse.
{¶ 15} While we understand Judge Grendell's position, we concur with the
majority's reasoning. The trial court has the ability to reject an application for authority to
administer an estate of a "disenfranchised creditor." In this case, appellant was clear in
her application to administer the estate that the estate owed her $35,010.00. R.C.
2117.02 is a statute drafted by the legislators to specifically address applications for
claims against the estate by administrators. In applying the statute as written, the plain
and unambiguous language of R.C. 2117.02 gave appellant, as administrator, three
months after her appointment to file her application for any claims against the estate.
Because appellant presented her application within the applicable three month period, it
was timely filed.
{¶ 16} Assignment of Error I is granted.
II
{¶ 17} Based upon our decision in Assignment of Error I, this assignment is moot.
Stark County, Case No. 2021 CA 00105 7
{¶ 18} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio, Probate
Division, is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to conduct a
hearing on appellant's application for allowance of claim against the estate in her role as
administrator, consistent with the language of R.C. 2117.02.
By Wise, Earl, P.J.
Wise, John, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
EEW/db
[Cite as In re Estate of Gates, 2022-Ohio-1091.]