Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDue ProcessProbateNotice to Creditorsdue processactual noticepublication noticeprobate

Facts

The executrix knew that the decedent had been a paying patient at the hospital for more than four months during his last illness and that the hospital had been processing bills through the decedent's insurer. Notice to creditors in the probate proceeding was given only by publication. The hospital did not receive actual notice of the deadline for filing claims against the estate. The executrix argued the hospital had effectively relinquished any right to notice, but the record showed no voluntary or intentional waiver.

Issue

Does Oklahoma law charge an estate representative with knowledge that a hospital where the decedent died as a paying patient is a potential creditor of the estate, thereby requiring actual notice rather than publication alone? If so, did the hospital waive its constitutional right to that notice?

Rule

An estate representative must use due diligence to identify a decedent's potential creditors from all available sources at hand, with the expected degree of diligence defined by 25 O.S. 1981 §§ 10-13. When the representative knows of a decedent's last-illness hospital stay as a paying patient, that knowledge is sufficient to put the representative on inquiry that the health care provider is likely a creditor, and actual notice of the claim-filing period must be given if the creditor's whereabouts are reasonably ascertainable. Waiver of the right to such notice requires a voluntary or intentional relinquishment of a known right.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Lena Ortiz was appointed personal representative of her father Raul's estate. Lena knew Raul had spent six weeks at Desert Mesa Medical Center as a paying patient before his death, but she gave notice to creditors only by newspaper publication because she assumed Raul's health insurer would handle any remaining charges.

If Desert Mesa Medical Center later seeks payment from the estate after the published claims period has expired, which is the strongest argument that its claim should not be barred?

Explanation. The majority held that an estate representative must use due diligence to identify potential creditors from available sources at hand. Knowledge that the decedent had a last-illness hospital stay as a paying patient is sufficient to put the representative on inquiry that the provider is likely a creditor. Once the creditor is likely or reasonably ascertainable, actual notice of the claims deadline is required; publication alone is inadequate.