R.I. Gen. Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-11-5

Time allowed for presenting claims — Late claims — Appeal

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Claims shall be presented within six (6) months from the first publication or be forever barred, subject to extensions granted pursuant to subsection 33-11-5(b).

(b) A creditor who, by reason of accident, mistake, excusable neglect or lack of adequate notice of decedent’s estate, failed to present a claim within six (6) months from the first publication, may before distribution of the estate, petition the probate court for leave to present a claim out of time. For purposes of this section, notice of commencement of probate pursuant to § 33-11-5.1 at least sixty (60) days before the expiration of the six (6) months claim period shall be deemed adequate. Upon hearing after notice to the decedent’s personal representative, heirs and beneficiaries (if any), the probate court may in its discretion, grant leave to present the claim out of time upon such terms as the court prescribes. Any claim presented out of time, if allowed, shall be paid out of the assets remaining in the personal representative’s hands when notice of the petition was received.

(c) There shall be no de novo appeal to the superior court from an order or decree of the probate court granting leave to present a claim out of time.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2024 · leading case: Heflin v. Koszela
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Heflin v. Koszela (2001) ri · cites it 8× “The time allowed for filing claims against a decedent’s estate in the probate court is governed by § 33-11-5.”
Sheehan v. Richardson (2004) rid · cites it 4× “See R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-11-5 (1956). Second, Appellants argue that *235 since the promissory note discussed above was signed by Swain, the Trustee cannot establish a debtor/creditor relationship between Newport Creamery and Appellants and thus, cannot recover against them.”
Estate of McAlpine v. Estate of McAlpine (1978) ri · cites it 11× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §33-11-5 is constitutional in that it grants no appellate review of an order or decree granting a petition which permits a party in a probate proceeding to file a claim out of time.”
In re Estate of May Manchester (2013) ri · cites it 4× “*431 Section 40-8-15(a) further provides that “[t]he lien shall not be effective and shall not attach as against a recipient’s estate * * * unless [DHS] has filed a claim for reimbursement in the probate court in accordance with § 33-11-5 or other applicable law.” Turning then…”
Summers v. Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC (2015) ca1 “The limitations period associated with the probate claim-filing statute, see R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-11-5, does not apply.”
Boyajian v. DeFusco (In Re Giorgio) (1986) rib · cites it 2× “LAWS § 33-11-5 (1984 Reenactment): 33-11-5. Time allowed for filing claims — Petition to allow late filing— Appeal.”
In Re Estate of Santoro (1990) ri · cites it 4× “Santo-ro during the statutory period as required by § 33-11-5. Vito argues, however, that §§ 33-11-4 and 33-11-5 deprived it of property without due process of law by closing the estate of Ernest J.”
Smith v. Estate of Catterall (1970) ri · cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §33-11-5. In essence, it provides that a claim against a decedent’s estate must be filed within the six-month period immediately following the first publication of the notice of the appointment of either the executor or the administrator.”
United States v. Sullivan (1966) rid · cites it 4× “Holt was published in the Providence Journal on April 13, 1960; that the period for filing claims against said estate provided under the provisions of Section 33-11-5 of the General Laws of Rhode Island, 1956, expired on October 13,1960; that the plaintiff failed to file any of…”
In Re Estate of Buonanno (2006) ri · cites it 7× “…1 . The order simply stated, "The Motion of Em[h]art Industries, Inc. to file a claim out of time pursuant to R.I.G.L. 33-11-5 is Granted””
Marcia Sallum Glassie v. Paul Doucette, in his capacity as of the Estate of Donelson C. Glassie (2024) ri · cites it 14× “The trial justice determined, based on defense counsel’s cross-examination of plaintiff during the March 9, 2020 bench trial, that plaintiff “knew in 2012” that she and defendant held conflicting interpretations of the disputed will provision.”
Cox v. Amend (1964) ri · cites it 3× “1956, §33-11-4, a statement thereof must be filed in the office of the clerk of the probate court and that, when not so filed within the time period specified therefor, it is barred ;by the provisions of §33-11-5. In short, appellant argues that because the undertaker did not…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-11-5(a) — 1 case
Marcia Sallum Glassie v. Paul Doucette, in his capacity as of the Estate of Donelson C. Glassie (2024) ri “The trial justice determined, based on defense counsel’s cross-examination of plaintiff during the March 9, 2020 bench trial, that plaintiff “knew in 2012” that she and defendant held conflicting interpretations of the disputed will provision.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-11-5(b) — 2 cases
In re Estate of May Manchester (2013) ri “*431 Section 40-8-15(a) further provides that “[t]he lien shall not be effective and shall not attach as against a recipient’s estate * * * unless [DHS] has filed a claim for reimbursement in the probate court in accordance with § 33-11-5 or other applicable law.” Turning then…”
Marcia Sallum Glassie v. Paul Doucette, in his capacity as of the Estate of Donelson C. Glassie (2024) ri “The trial justice determined, based on defense counsel’s cross-examination of plaintiff during the March 9, 2020 bench trial, that plaintiff “knew in 2012” that she and defendant held conflicting interpretations of the disputed will provision.”
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.