Everett Pope, Jr. Under the nonclaim provision of Oklahoma's Probate Code, creditors' claims against an estate are generally barred unless they are presented to the executor or executrix within two months of the publication of notice of the commencement of probate proceedings. Appellee executrix published the required notice in compliance with the terms of the nonclaim statute and a probate court order, but appellant, the assignee of a hospital's claim for expenses connected with the decedent's final illness, failed to file a timely claim.
For this reason, the probate court denied appellant's application for payment, and both the State Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting appellant's contention that, in failing to require more than publication notice, the nonclaim statute violated due process.
That contention was based upon Mullane v. Adams, U. Held: If appellant's identity as a creditor was known or "reasonably ascertainable" by appellee a fact which cannot be determined from the present record , the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment , as interpreted by Mullane and Mennonite, requires that appellant be given notice by mail or such other means as is certain to ensure actual notice.
Appellant's claim is properly considered a property interest protected by the Clause. Moreover, the nonclaim statute is not simply a self-executing statute of limitations.
Texaco, Inc. Short, U. Rather, the probate court's intimate involvement throughout the probate proceedings particularly the court's activation of the statute's time bar by the appointment of an executor or executrixโis so pervasive and substantial that it must be considered state action. Nor can there be any doubt that the statute may "adversely affect" protected property interests, since untimely claims such as appellant's are completely extinguished.
