Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.145 (2026)

Procedure by claimant on disallowance of claim

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      115.145 Procedure by claimant on disallowance of claim. (1) If the personal representative disallows a claim in whole or in part, the claimant, within 30 days after the date of mailing or delivery of the notice of disallowance, may either:

      (a) File with the court in the estate proceeding a request for summary determination of the claim by the probate court, with proof of service of a copy of the request upon the personal representative or the attorney of the personal representative; or

      (b) Commence a separate action against the personal representative on the claim in any court of competent jurisdiction. The action shall proceed and be tried as any other action.

      (2) If the claimant fails to either request a summary determination or commence a separate action as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the claim, to the extent disallowed by the personal representative, is barred.

      (3) In a proceeding for summary determination of a claim or in a separate action on a claim the claim shall be allowed or judgment entered on the claim in the full amount of the liability, if any, of the decedent to the claimant. However, the claim shall be paid only to the extent of the assets of the estate allocable to the payment of the claim pursuant to ORS 115.115 and 115.125. [1969 c.591 §154; 1989 c.229 §7; 2017 c.169 §32]

 

      115.150 [Repealed by 1969 c.591 §305]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1976–2014 · leading case: State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiff's action. [1] The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant's.”
First Interstate Bank v. Haynes, 699 P.2d 1168 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “ORS 115.145(1). If neither action is taken, “the claim, to the extent disallowed by the personal representative, is barred.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Resources & Senior & Disabled Servs. Div. v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiffs action. 1 The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant’s.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “008 was enacted to legislatively abrogate our decision in Payne , the statute tracks the language of our opinion that referred to the time limitation at issue, contained in ORS 115.145, as a “statute of limitations.”
First Interstate Bank v. Haynes, 704 P.2d 1165 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “Plaintiff asserts that we failed to recognize that, under ORS 115.145, a creditor has 30 days within which to file either a request for summary determination or an action against the personal representative and that the personal representative “arbitrarily and inexplicably”…”
Flaig v. Emert, 320 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “When an estate’s personal representative disallows a creditor’s claim against the estate, the probate code— specifically, ORS 115.145 — gives the creditor two avenues by which to contest the personal representative’s decision.”
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hs v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “" Moreover, to the extent that ORS 115.008 was enacted to legislatively abrogate our decision in Payne , the statute tracks the language of our opinion that referred to the time limitation at issue, contained in ORS 115.”
Thomas v. State ex rel. Senior & Disabled Servs. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “” In ORS 115.145, the procedure for the holder of a disallowed claim is made clear.”
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “See ORS 115.145(l)(b) (when a claim is disallowed, the claimant may “ [c] ommence a separate action against the personal representative on the claim in any court of competent jurisdiction” and “[t]he action shall proceed and be tried as any other action”).”
Thomas v. Senior & Disabled Serv. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “" In ORS 115.145, the procedure for the holder of a disallowed claim is made clear.”
Vermeer v. Bunyard, 695 P.2d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “*82 Plaintiffs commenced this action within 30 days, as required by ORS 115.145(l)(b). The period for which the claim is made may be divided into three distinct periods: (1) August 1,1979, through October 24,1979, before Jess Bunyard’s death; (2) October 25, 1979, through May…”
Pickett v. Pickett, 544 P.2d 1042 (Or. 1976). “The defendant, June Pickett, disallowed the claim and in accord with the procedure established by ORS 115.145 and 115.155 the plaintiff filed a separate action in the circuit court for Coos county against the personal representative, June Pickett, to prove plaintiff’s claim…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.145(1) — 5 cases
First Interstate Bank v. Haynes, 699 P.2d 1168 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 115.145(1). If neither action is taken, “the claim, to the extent disallowed by the personal representative, is barred.”
State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiff's action. [1] The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant's.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “008 was enacted to legislatively abrogate our decision in Payne , the statute tracks the language of our opinion that referred to the time limitation at issue, contained in ORS 115.145, as a “statute of limitations.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Resources & Senior & Disabled Servs. Div. v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiffs action. 1 The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant’s.”
State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hs v. Broyles, 208 P.3d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “" Moreover, to the extent that ORS 115.008 was enacted to legislatively abrogate our decision in Payne , the statute tracks the language of our opinion that referred to the time limitation at issue, contained in ORS 115.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.145(1)(b) — 1 case
State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiff's action. [1] The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant's.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.145(2) — 3 cases
First Interstate Bank v. Haynes, 699 P.2d 1168 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 115.145(1). If neither action is taken, “the claim, to the extent disallowed by the personal representative, is barred.”
Thomas v. State ex rel. Senior & Disabled Servs. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994). “” In ORS 115.145, the procedure for the holder of a disallowed claim is made clear.”
Thomas v. Senior & Disabled Serv. Div., 878 P.2d 1081 (Or. 1994). “" In ORS 115.145, the procedure for the holder of a disallowed claim is made clear.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.145(3) — 2 cases
State, Dept. of Human Resources v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiff's action. [1] The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant's.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Resources & Senior & Disabled Servs. Div. v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiffs action. 1 The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant’s.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.145(l)(a) — 1 case
Flaig v. Emert, 320 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “When an estate’s personal representative disallows a creditor’s claim against the estate, the probate code— specifically, ORS 115.145 — gives the creditor two avenues by which to contest the personal representative’s decision.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 115.145(l)(b) — 4 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Resources & Senior & Disabled Servs. Div. v. Payne, 970 P.2d 266 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “The decisive issue is which party is correct, as a matter of law, as to whether ORS 115.145 bars plaintiffs action. 1 The trial court agreed with plaintiff and granted its motion and denied defendant’s.”
State v. Cue, 342 P.3d 98 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “See ORS 115.145(l)(b) (when a claim is disallowed, the claimant may “ [c] ommence a separate action against the personal representative on the claim in any court of competent jurisdiction” and “[t]he action shall proceed and be tried as any other action”).”
Vermeer v. Bunyard, 695 P.2d 57 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “*82 Plaintiffs commenced this action within 30 days, as required by ORS 115.145(l)(b). The period for which the claim is made may be divided into three distinct periods: (1) August 1,1979, through October 24,1979, before Jess Bunyard’s death; (2) October 25, 1979, through May…”
Flaig v. Emert, 320 P.3d 586 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “When an estate’s personal representative disallows a creditor’s claim against the estate, the probate code— specifically, ORS 115.145 — gives the creditor two avenues by which to contest the personal representative’s decision.”
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.