[WSBAPT] Is This Creditor Ascertainable?

[Mark Vohr]

John – I would consider any person that contacts the PR or their attorney by whatever means during the 4 month creditor claim period – even for the very first time, and previously unknown, to be a reasonably ascertainable creditor.  Actually, I would even go the step beyond and stay they are an identified potential creditor.  So – send the notice to get the thirty day clock going.  It does not mean you will accept their claim – as it can still be rejected.  But, I think if the creditor were to tell a court that they personally contacted the PR or their attorney it would be hard not to say they should get actual notice as a reasonably ascertainable creditor.



Regards,

Mark

Mark C. Vohr, Esq.
Ohana Fiduciary Corp.
Ohana Financial Services
A Washington Trust Company
Mark C. Vohr, J.D., CPG, Principal
PO Box 33710  Seattle, WA  98133
T:  (206) 782-1189 F:  (206) 782-1434
mcv at ohanafc.com      www.ohanafc.com

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of John J. Sullivan, Esq.
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:36 PM
To: 'WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv' <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBAPT] Is This Creditor Ascertainable?


Listmates:

I have a hypothetical question that came close to being a real practice question today.

Say you publish notice to creditors. Then a creditor you didn’t know about contacts your client say four days before the four month period ends. Does that creditor become ascertainable, entitled to a letter and 30 period just because of that late phone call or letter to the client? Or can you count down the four days?

I say hypothetical because in my particular case it’s hard to argue the home care services were not provided to the decedent the month before he died, even though he and his AIF fired them a few weeks before he died.

Has this come up before? I guess if you boil it down, the question is whether ascertainability is determined at the time notice is published, or any time before the four months expires. I assume if you find out after the four months it’s not retroactive. But I think I’m leaning in the direction of saying the creditor in my hypothetical becomes ascertainable because the due diligence declaration, if you file one, is made after the four months expires.

Thoughts?

Best regards,
JOHN J. SULLIVAN,
ATTORNEY

LYONS | SULLIVAN
10655 NE 4TH STREET, SUITE 704
BELLEVUE, WA  98004
425·451·2400 TEL 425-451-7385 FAX
WWW.DLJSLAW.COM<http://WWW.DLJSLAW.COM>

Confidentiality Notice
This email transmission is intended only for the addressee named above.  It contains information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from use and disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, or dissemination of this transmission or the taking of any action in reliance on its contents or other use is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy the original and notify us by telephone immediately.  Thank you for your cooperation

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20200401/775185f3/attachment.html>