115.005
Presentation of claims; time limitations. (1)(a) Claims against the estate of a decedent, other
than claims of the personal representative as a creditor of the decedent, shall
be presented to the personal representative. Filing a claim with the court does
not constitute presentation to the personal representative. Except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a claim is presented to the personal
representative when the claim is mailed or personally delivered to the personal
representative at:
(A) The address
for the personal representative included in the petition for appointment of the
personal representative under ORS 113.035;
(B) The address
provided for presentation of claims under ORS 115.003; or
(C) The address
provided for presentation of claims in the published notice under ORS 113.155
or 113.225.
(b) In addition
to the addresses for the presentation of claims under paragraph (a) of this
subsection, the personal representative may authorize creditors to present
claims by electronic mail or facsimile communication to a designated electronic
mail address or facsimile number. If the personal representative authorizes
alternative methods of presentation under this subsection, a claim is presented
to the personal representative when it is sent to the electronic mail address
or the facsimile number designated by the personal representative for the
presentation of claims, unless the sender receives a notice that the electronic
mail was not delivered or the facsimile communication was not successful. If
the personal representative denies receiving the electronic mail or facsimile
communication, the burden of proof is on the creditor to demonstrate that the
electronic mail was properly addressed and sent or that the facsimile
communication was properly addressed and successfully delivered or transmitted.
(2) Except as
provided in subsection (3) of this section, a claim is barred from payment from
the estate if not presented within the statute of limitations applicable to the
claim and before the later of:
(a) Four months
after the date of publication of notice to interested persons; or
(b) If the claim
was one with respect to which the personal representative was required to
deliver or mail a notice under ORS 115.003 (2), 45 days after a notice meeting
the requirements of ORS 115.003 (3) is delivered or mailed to the last-known
address of the person asserting the claim.
(3) A claim
against the estate presented after claims are barred under subsection (2) of
this section shall be paid from the estate if the claim:
(a) Is presented
before the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to the claim and
before the personal representative files the final account;
(b) Is presented
by a person who did not receive a notice under ORS 115.003 mailed or delivered
more than 30 days prior to the date on which the claim is presented and who is
not an assignee of a person who received such notice; and
(c) Would be
allowable but for the time at which the claim is presented.
(4) A claim
against an estate may be paid under subsection (3) of this section only after
payment of all expenses having priority over claims under ORS 115.125 and
payment of all previously presented claims.
(5) This section
does not affect or prevent:
(a) Any
proceeding to enforce a mortgage, pledge or other lien upon property of the
estate, or to quiet title or reform any instrument with respect to title to
property; or
(b) To the limits
of the insurance protection only, any proceeding to establish liability of the
decedent or the personal representative for which the decedent or personal
representative is protected by liability insurance at the time the proceeding
is commenced. [1969 c.591 §141; 1973 c.506 §29; 1989 c.229 §4; 1993 c.214 §1;
2001 c.620 §3; 2003 c.523 §1; 2017 c.169 §27; 2023 c.18 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1976–2017 · leading case:
Willbanks v. Goodwin, 689 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Willbanks v. Goodwin, 689 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 7× “Defendants’ first two assignments of error are the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint on the ground that it was time barred under ORS 115.005 and its granting of plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defense of the statute of…”
Ramirez v. Lembcke, 80 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “ORS 115.005 provides, in part: *76 (Emphasis added.”
Willbanks v. Goodwin, 709 P.2d 213 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 3× “1 ORS 115.005 provides: “(1) Claims against the estate of a decedent, other than claims of the personal representative as a creditor of the decedent, shall be presented to the personal representative.”
Rawls v. Evans, 48 P.3d 159 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Next, appellants argue that Zollman’s claim was time barred under the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 115.005(4). 1 Evans died in 1995. In that same year, the trial court determined that Zollman’s earnest money agreement *84 was enforceable and that the personal…”
Hein v. Thiel, 549 P.2d 514 (Or. 1976).
· cites it 3× “because plaintiff "failed to comply with the estate claim procedures” required by ORS 115.005 and 115.025. 1 More specifically, defendant contends that the letter which plaintiff’s attorney wrote to defendant’s attorney failed to satisfy the requirements of these statutes in…”
Wilson v. Culbertson, 599 P.2d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Defendant filed a plea in abatement, contending that the claim against the estate was barred because it had not first been presented to the personal representative as required by ORS 115.005(1). The district court sustained the plea in abatement because it concluded that…”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “004(5), whichever is earlier); ORS 115.005(2) (requiring compliance with both the statute of limitations applicable to the claim and the time limitations in ORS 115.”
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 16× “We conclude that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that OHA had failed to satisfy the condition of ORS 115.005 (3)(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.”
First Interstate Bank v. Haynes, 699 P.2d 1168 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
“A claim on a debt, whether absolute or contingent, is presented to an estate in the manner provided in ORS 115.005. If the claim is disallowed, the claimant has 30 days within which to request a summary determination of the claim or to commence a separate action against the…”
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hs v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 9× “" [4] ORS 115.005 provides, in part: "(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a claim is barred from payment from the estate if not presented within the statute of limitations applicable to the claim and before the later of: "(a) Four months after the date of…”
Thomas v. State ex rel. Senior & Disabled Servs. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 4× “075 (claims for debts not yet due may be presented and allowed at their present value, facilitating settling the estate before future debts become due); ORS 115.005(4) (“[c]laims not presented within two years of the death of the decedent or within the applicable statute of…”
Thomas v. Senior & Disabled Serv. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 4× “075 (claims for debts not yet due may be presented and allowed at their present value, facilitating settling the estate before future debts become due); ORS 115.005(4) ("[c]laims not presented within two years of the death of the decedent or within the applicable statute of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(1) — 4 cases
Wilson v. Culbertson, 599 P.2d 1163 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Defendant filed a plea in abatement, contending that the claim against the estate was barred because it had not first been presented to the personal representative as required by ORS 115.005(1). The district court sustained the plea in abatement because it concluded that…”
Ramirez v. Lembcke, 80 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“ORS 115.005 provides, in part: *76 (Emphasis added.”
Willbanks v. Goodwin, 689 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Defendants’ first two assignments of error are the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint on the ground that it was time barred under ORS 115.005 and its granting of plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defense of the statute of…”
Hein v. Thiel, 549 P.2d 514 (Or. 1976).
“because plaintiff "failed to comply with the estate claim procedures” required by ORS 115.005 and 115.025. 1 More specifically, defendant contends that the letter which plaintiff’s attorney wrote to defendant’s attorney failed to satisfy the requirements of these statutes in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(2) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“004(5), whichever is earlier); ORS 115.005(2) (requiring compliance with both the statute of limitations applicable to the claim and the time limitations in ORS 115.”
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We conclude that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that OHA had failed to satisfy the condition of ORS 115.005 (3)(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.”
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hs v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“" [4] ORS 115.005 provides, in part: "(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a claim is barred from payment from the estate if not presented within the statute of limitations applicable to the claim and before the later of: "(a) Four months after the date of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(2)(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“004(5), whichever is earlier); ORS 115.005(2) (requiring compliance with both the statute of limitations applicable to the claim and the time limitations in ORS 115.”
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hs v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“" [4] ORS 115.005 provides, in part: "(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a claim is barred from payment from the estate if not presented within the statute of limitations applicable to the claim and before the later of: "(a) Four months after the date of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(3) — 4 cases
Willbanks v. Goodwin, 709 P.2d 213 (Or. 1985).
“1 ORS 115.005 provides: “(1) Claims against the estate of a decedent, other than claims of the personal representative as a creditor of the decedent, shall be presented to the personal representative.”
Willbanks v. Goodwin, 689 P.2d 1004 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Defendants’ first two assignments of error are the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint on the ground that it was time barred under ORS 115.005 and its granting of plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defense of the statute of…”
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We conclude that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that OHA had failed to satisfy the condition of ORS 115.005 (3)(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We conclude that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that OHA had failed to satisfy the condition of ORS 115.005 (3)(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We conclude that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that OHA had failed to satisfy the condition of ORS 115.005 (3)(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(3)(c) — 1 case
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We conclude that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant for the reason that OHA had failed to satisfy the condition of ORS 115.005 (3)(b). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.005(4) — 4 cases
Rawls v. Evans, 48 P.3d 159 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“Next, appellants argue that Zollman’s claim was time barred under the two-year statute of limitations in ORS 115.005(4). 1 Evans died in 1995. In that same year, the trial court determined that Zollman’s earnest money agreement *84 was enforceable and that the personal…”
Ramirez v. Lembcke, 80 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“ORS 115.005 provides, in part: *76 (Emphasis added.”
Thomas v. State ex rel. Senior & Disabled Servs. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994).
“075 (claims for debts not yet due may be presented and allowed at their present value, facilitating settling the estate before future debts become due); ORS 115.005(4) (“[c]laims not presented within two years of the death of the decedent or within the applicable statute of…”
Thomas v. Senior & Disabled Serv. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994).
“075 (claims for debts not yet due may be presented and allowed at their present value, facilitating settling the estate before future debts become due); ORS 115.005(4) ("[c]laims not presented within two years of the death of the decedent or within the applicable statute of…”
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.