All claims arising upon contracts entered into prior to the decedent's death, whether the same be due, not due or contingent, must be presented on or before the presentment date as provided in the notice, and any claim not so presented is barred forever; provided, however, that when it is made to appear by the affidavit of the claimant, to the satisfaction of the personal representative and the judge of the district court, as duly noted on the claim, that the claimant had no notice by reason of being out of the state and that a copy of the notice to creditors was not mailed to said claimant, the claim may be presented at any time before a final decree of distribution is entered; provided, further, that nothing in this section, nor in this chapter contained, shall be construed to prohibit the right or limit the time of foreclosure of mortgages upon real property of decedents, but every such mortgage may be foreclosed within the time and in the mode prescribed in civil procedure, except that no balance of the debt secured by such mortgage remaining unpaid after foreclosure shall be a claim against the estate, unless such debt was presented as required by this code. Amended by Laws 1988, c. 228, § 8, emerg. eff. June 22, 1988; Laws 1991, c. 148, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.
Notes of Decisions
In the Matter of the Est. of Carlson, 2016 OK 6 (Okla. 2016).
· cites it 18× “Title 58 O.S. 2011 § 333 (emphasis added) provides: [a]ll claims arising upon contracts entered into prior to the decedent's death, whether the same be due, not due or contingent, must be presented on or before the presentment date as provided in the notice, and any claim not so…”
Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 733 P.2d 396 (Okla. 1986).
· cites it 3× “and 58 O.S.1971 § 333, which provided in pertinent part: If a claim arising upon a contract heretofore made, be not presented within the time limited in the notice, it is barred forever, .”
Est. of Villines v. Szczepanski, 2005 OK 63 (Okla. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Lastly, creditor asserts the trial judge’s decision circumvents the intent of the probate law to provide opportunity for creditors to submit their claims, (citing 58 O.S.§ 333) The terms of 58 O.S. § 333 provide: “All claims arising under contracts entered into prior to the…”
State Ex Rel. Schones v. Town of Canute, 858 P.2d 436 (Okla. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Reed 15 we applied to the State the statutory time limit in 58 O.S.1981 § 333 16 for filing a creditor’s claim against a decedent’s estate.”
Haddock v. Williams, 378 P.2d 774 (Okla. 1963).
· cites it 3× “” Title 58 O.S.1961 § 333, provides that “If a claim arising upon a contract heretofore made, be not presented within the time limited in the notice, it is barred forever, except as follows: * * * It is not contended that the alleged claim in the instant case comes within the…”
Malicoate v. Stand. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2000 OK CIV APP 37 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “2d 953 (1942), one claiming an equitable lien on a particular fund is not required to file a creditor’s claim in order to preserve or assert the claim, because the time-bar of 58 O.S.1991 § 333 applies only to those situations where a claim is asserted against the general assets…”
Cahill v. Kilgore, 350 P.2d 928 (Okla. 1960).
“In the statute (58 O.S.1951 § 333) providing the time within which claims based upon contracts shall be presented to the personal representative of an estate, and if not timely presented same are barred, an exception is noted.”
Anderson v. Merriott, 550 P.2d 1320 (Okla. 1976).
“58 O.S.1971 § 333 provides: “ * * * All claims arising upon contracts hereafter made, whether the same be due, not due or contingent, must be presented within the time limited in the notice; *1322 and any claim not so presented is barred forever: * * * ” (Emphasis supplied) .”
Johnson v. Hazaleus, 338 P.2d 345 (Okla. 1959).
“The clear weight of the evidence established the oral contract, the full performance by one and an attempted full performance by the other, warranting specific performance against the decedent’s personal representative.”
Pfleider v. Smith, 370 P.2d 17 (Okla. 1962).
“Defendant claims the case need not be retried because plaintiff failed to allege presentation of a claim to the administrator as required in 58 O.S.1951 §§ 333 and 341. We will comment on this proposal and on the procedure to be followed at the next trial.”
Porter v. Oklahoma Bacone Coll. Trust, 346 P.2d 335 (Okla. 1959).
“” The record fails to show that the Porters filed a claim in the County Court of Muskogee County covering alleged unpaid attorneys’ fees earned in representing the domiciliary executor in Texas.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.