Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Batson v. Clark, 980 S.W.2d 566 (1998)

Citation
Batson v. Clark, 980 S.W.2d 566 (1998)
Parent Document
Batson v. Clark, 980 S.W.2d 566 (1998)
Jurisdiction
Kentucky (state)
Effective Date
1998-10-16

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text

1,083 chars
We disagree with Batson’s position. In fact, we do not consider appellees’ allegations to be probate-type “claims” at all, i.e., they arose after the death of the decedent, Margaret, and represent obligations created, not by Margaret for any wrongful conduct she committed, but by the executor himself for actions he took after Margaret’s death. In other words, appellees’ cause of action accrued against the executor of Margaret’s estate, not against Margaret. As used in probate statutes, such as KRS 396.011, which limit the time frame in which creditors may present their claims against an estate (“non-claim” statutes, as they are routinely called), the word “claim” generally refers to “debts or demands against the decedent which might have been enforced against him during his lifetime_” 31 Am.Jur.2d Executors and Administrators § 603 (1989) (emphasis added). Margaret took no action during her lifetime which would have prompted this litigation and, thus, appellees could not have enforced these claims against Margaret during her lifetime because they had not yet accrued.