In re Estate of Monroe v. Green

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2013 » In re Estate of Monroe v. Green

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2013-Ohio-1639

Case Date: 04/23/2013

Plaintiff: In re Estate of Monroe

Defendant: Green

Preview:[Cite as In re Estate of Monroe v. Green, 2013-Ohio-1639.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re:                                                                                       :
Estate of Linda K. Monroe, deceased,
:                                                                                            No. 12AP-874
(P.C. No. 554545)
(Elizabeth Green, Administrator                                                              :
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Appellant).                                                                                  :
D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N
Rendered on April 23, 2013
Frase,  Weir,  Baker  and  McCullough  Co.,  L.P.A.,  and
Robert E. Weir, for appellant.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
Probate Division
McCORMAC, J.
{¶ 1}  On May  17,  2008, Elizabeth Green was a passenger in a car driven by
Linda K. Monroe.   Linda K. Monroe died on August 23, 2009.  No estate was probated or
opened until July 24, 2012, when Elizabeth Green requested the Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas, Probate Division to appoint her as administrator of the estate in order to
recover compensation for injuries received as a result of the automobile accident in 2008.
On July 26, 2012, Green filed a petition for allowance of a contingent claim with the
probate court.  Her application read as follows:
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF CONTINGENT CLAIM
Administrator, Elizabeth Green, through counsel, states that
on  July                                                                                     24,            2012,  she  was  appointed  by  this  Court  as
Administrator of the Estate of Linda K. Monroe, deceased;
that she has a contingent personal injury claim against the

No. 12AP-874                                                                                2
decedent and, upon her death, against the decedent's Estate;
that no payments have been made on the contingent claim;
that Medicaid has a $59,065.29 subrogation claim; and, that
there is due to her on her contingent claim from the Estate a
sum in excess of $25,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Administrator Elizabeth Green, respectfully
requests the Court to allow the contingent claim in excess of
$25,000.00 against the within Estate.
(Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 2}  The probate court responded to that claim by entry of September 5, 2012,
stating:
This  matter  came  for  hearing  on  September  5,                                         2012  to
consider the claim of Elizabeth Green, Administrator of the
above estate for allowance of her claim. The Court finds that
the decedent died on August 23, 2009, and the Administrator
was appointed on July  24,  2012, outside of the six month
statute for presentment of claims under R.C.  2117.06. It is
therefore ordered that the claim be disallowed.
{¶ 3}  Green  has  filed  a  timely  appeal  to  this  court  alleging  the  following
assignment of error:
The Trial Court erred as a matter of law to the prejudice of
Appellant by denying Appellant's claim against the Estate of
Linda K. Monroe.
{¶ 4}  In her statement of facts, Green alleges that on May 17, 2008, she was a
"passenger of an automobile insured by Allstate Insurance Company and driven by
Linda K. Monroe, who negligently operated said automobile, causing injury to Elizabeth
Green."   She further states that Monroe died owning real estate, a probate asset, and an
automobile insurance policy issued by Allstate Insurance Company, a non-probate asset,
with limits of liability of $100,000/$300,000.
{¶ 5}  Green seeks only a recovery against Allstate and has no intention or ability
to recover any damages for her injuries from estate assets.
{¶ 6}  The probate court denied the claim solely on the basis that R.C. 2117.06(B)
which, as pertinent here, provides:

No. 12AP-874                                                                                    3
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.
{¶ 7}  In R.C. 2117.06(C), it is provided that:
Except as provided in section 2117.061 of the Revised Code, a
claim that is not presented within six months after the death
of  the  decedent  shall  be  forever  barred  as  to  all  parties,
including,  but  not  limited  to,  devisees,  legatees,  and
distributees. No payment shall be made on the claim and no
action shall be maintained on the claim, except as otherwise
provided in sections 2117.37 to 2117.42 of the Revised Code
with reference to contingent claims.
{¶ 8}  R.C. 2117.061 is not applicable to this tort case, as it is only concerned with
"Medicaid estate recovery program."
{¶ 9}  The contingent claims referred to in R.C. 2117.37 to 2117.42 are claims that
have not matured at the time of Monroe's death.   The claim herein does not fall within
these exceptions.  The exceptions do not apply because the claim matured for appellant at
the time of the automobile accident which occurred over one year prior to Monroe's
death.
{¶ 10} The Supreme Court of Ohio decided the case of Meinberg v. Glaser, Exr., 14
Ohio St.2d  193  (1968), where the plaintiff was seeking recovery from an automobile
liability insurance company who provided coverage to the plaintiff for personal injuries
received in an automobile accident on June  24,  1964.    Just as in this case, and as
previously stated, the contingent claim exceptions were clearly not applicable.
{¶ 11} In Meinberg, the Supreme Court found that the automobile liability policy
was not an "asset of the estate" and that a plaintiff seeking to recover may proceed against
the estate despite the fact that the claim was not presented against the estate within the
periods provided by R.C. 2117.06.   Id. at 199.   The court held that the liability insurance
policy was a non-probate asset and that recovery could only come from this non-probate
asset.

No. 12AP-874                                                                                    4
{¶ 12} Based upon the holding in Meinberg, we find that the claim of Green is not
barred by the provisions of R.C. 2117.06 and that Green's claim may be pursued against
Monroe's estate to recover insurance liability assets from Allstate Insurance Company.  In
this claim, liability of Monroe must be established.  The statute of limitations or any other
defense that is applicable should be determined in the same manner as in other tort cases.
While the Meinberg case refers to two years, that time is not set in stone because, after
1968, certain tolling provisions have been established, such as absence from the state,
which may apply to extend the time.   None of that evidence is before us.   That evidence
will be before the trial court on remand as in other tort claims.  All we are adjudicating in
this case is that Monroe's liability insurance is a non-probate asset and that the estate and
its assets are fully protected from any expense or liability.
{¶ 13} Green's assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 14} Having sustained Green's assignment of error, the judgment of the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, is reversed and this cause is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause
remanded for further proceedings.
BRYANT and CONNOR, JJ., concur.
McCORMAC,  J.,  retired,  formerly  of  the  Tenth  Appellate
District, assigned to active duty under the authority of the
Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C).

Download 12ap-874.pdf