Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
99 L. Ed. 2d 565, 485 U.S. 478, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1870 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a decedent's known or reasonably ascertainable creditors receive actual notice of the deadline for filing claims against an estate when that deadline is not self-executing but is instead triggered by court-involved probate proceedings.
Facts:
- H. Everett Pope, Jr., was a patient at St. John Medical Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for several months.
- On April 2, 1979, Pope died while still at the hospital, leaving an unpaid bill for his medical care.
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc., became the assignee of the hospital's claim for the unpaid expenses.
- JoAnne Pope, the decedent's wife and the executrix of his estate, published a notice to creditors in the Tulsa Daily Legal News, pursuant to Oklahoma law.
- The published notice stated that any creditors had two months from the date of the first publication to file claims against the estate.
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc., did not file a claim for the unpaid hospital bill within the two-month period.
Procedural Posture:
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. filed an Application for Order Compelling Payment in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (trial court).
- The District Court denied the application, finding the claim was barred for being filed outside the two-month statutory period.
- Appellant Tulsa Professional Collection Services appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court.
- On rehearing, the Court of Appeals rejected the appellant's argument, raised for the first time, that the notice provision violated the Due Process Clause.
- Appellant sought review in the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which affirmed the lower courts' judgments, holding that notice by publication was constitutional.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among state courts on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a decedent's known or reasonably ascertainable creditors receive actual notice of the deadline for filing claims against an estate, rather than mere notice by publication, when the deadline is triggered by court-involved probate proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes. If a creditor's identity is known or reasonably ascertainable, the Due Process Clause requires that the creditor be given notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice; notice by publication is constitutionally insufficient where the claim-filing deadline is triggered by court proceedings. The Court reasoned that an unsecured claim against an estate is a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Oklahoma nonclaim statute, which extinguishes such claims, is not a 'self-executing' statute of limitations because it becomes operative only through significant state action involving the probate court's appointment of an executor and order to publish notice. Because state action is present and a property interest is adversely affected, the balancing test from Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. requires notice 'reasonably calculated' to apprise interested parties. For a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor, publication is inadequate, while actual notice by mail is an efficient and inexpensive means that does not unduly burden the state's interest in the expeditious resolution of probate.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The notice by publication provided under the Oklahoma statute is constitutionally sufficient. The dissent argued there is no meaningful distinction between the state action in this case and the 'self-executing' statute upheld in Texaco, Inc. v. Short. The probate court's involvement is merely administrative and perfunctory, not the kind of significant state action that should trigger heightened due process requirements. From the claimant's perspective, it makes no difference whether a time bar is activated by a court-appointed executor or by the mere passage of time. The majority's focus on trivial state involvement is misplaced, and the traditional use of publication notice in probate serves the important purpose of settling estates efficiently.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered state probate law by extending the due process notice requirements of Mullane and Mennonite to creditors' claims in probate. It established a critical distinction between self-executing statutes of limitation, which do not require actual notice, and nonclaim statutes activated by court proceedings, which do. The ruling invalidated the notice-by-publication schemes used by the vast majority of states at the time, forcing legislatures to amend their probate codes to require executors to make 'reasonably diligent efforts' to identify and provide actual notice to creditors. The case clarifies that even proceedings that do not adjudicate the merits of a claim can 'adversely affect' a property interest sufficiently to implicate due process protections.
Unlock the full brief for Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope