Amendments to 859.01

1. In Matter of Estate of Fessler

   100 Wis. 2d 437 (Wis. 1981)   Cited 55 times   2 Legal Analyses

   • Motion to dismiss
   2 more...

   On December 26, 1978, almost nine months after the final date for filing claims as ordered by the court, Tanner filed a claim against the estate in the amount of $11,287.20. The personal representative, Mrs. Earl W. Fessler, objected to the allowance of Tanner's demand as an untimely claim barred by the operation of sec. 859.01, Stats.

   PAGE 440
2. Landwehr v. Citizens Trust Co.

   110 Wis. 2d 716 (Wis. 1983)   Cited 59 times

   1 more...

   Oswald Landwehr commenced an action against Citizens Trust Company as personal representative of the estate of Otto Landwehr. The action was brought after the time for filing claims against the estate, under sec. 859.01, Stats., had expired. However, sec. 859.01 does not apply to torts, and the complaint was filed within three years of the defective execution of the instrument. Citizens Trust Company moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the contract action was barred by sec. 859.01, and that the tort action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that since there was no legal duty to provide by will for a son who has cared for his father, independent of a contract to do so, there was no basis for tort liability. The court of appeals accepted the trial judge's reasoning and affirmed the decision.

   PAGE 720
3. In Matter of Estate of Barthel

   161 Wis. 2d 587 (Wis. 1991)   Cited 12 times

   2 more...

   In light of the reasoning behind the Pope decision and its subsequent application to this case, we now conclude that sec. 859.01, Stats. 1987-88, does not represent a self-executing statute of limitations, but involve sufficient state action to invoke the due process clause.

   PAGE 597
4. Schoeberle v. U.S.

   Nos. 99 C 0352, 99 C 2292, 99 C 2599 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2001)

   • Motion for summary judgment

   The Schoeberle plaintiffs refiled their claims against the Estate of Leiske with the Special Administrator on September 1, 2000. While it is undisputed that these claims were filed after the deadline, set forth in § 859.01. Wis. Stat., (Time for filing claims . . . "the date shall not be less than 3 months nor more than 4 months from the date of the order") tort claims are specifically exempt from the provision set forth in § 859.01. See section 859.02(2)and MacDonald, Wisconsin Probate Law, (8th Ed.) § 9:6. Section 859.45 of the Wisconsin Probate Act provides in relevant part:
5. In re Estate of Boemer

   Case No. 96-3138 (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 1998)

   Boemer's claim is based on an alleged contract he entered into with his mother. Under § 859.01, Stats., Boemer had to file his creditor claim against his mother's estate by the court-assigned deadline of September 30, 1995, or it would be barred. See § 859.01. Attempting to recast his breach of contract claim as a tort claim for conversion, Boemer contends that his claim survives, under § 859.02(2)(a), Stats. His attempt fails, however, because a late claim, even if based in tort, is not timely, and therefore, "the failure relieves the court of all responsibility to protect the rights of the claimant and the claimant shall not be granted any of the protection under s. 859.21." Sections 859.45(1) (2), Stats.
6. Andre v. Erickson (In re Estate of Erickson)

   835 N.W.2d 291 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013)

   ¶ 7 Claims against an estate filed after the deadline set by the court are generally barred. SeeWis. Stat. §§ 859.01, 859.02(1). Andre argues the Erickson children's motion should be construed as a claim against the Estate, and must be dismissed as untimely filed. In Andre's view, this is so for three reasons: first, their request essentially constitutes a claim for breach of contract, which is subject to the time limitations established by § 859.01, see Landwehr v. Citizens Trust Co., 110 Wis.2d 716, 719, 329 N.W.2d 411 (1983); second, the Erickson children's motion is duplicative of Michelle's untimely claim; and third, granting the motion would be inequitable to Andre. We reject each of these arguments.
7. Foster v. State

   875 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 1 times

   The trial court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the crime of poisoning under section 859.01, Florida Statutes, stating:

   PAGE 1254
8. Foster v. State

   937 So. 2d 742 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 2 times

   § 859.01, Fla. Stat. (2000).

   PAGE 744
9. Benjamin v. Benjamin (In re Estate of Benjamin)

   881 N.W.2d 358 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016)

   Wisconsin Stat. § 859.01 provides: “When an application for administration is filed, the court, or the probate registrar under informal administration proceedings, shall by order set a date as the deadline for filing a claim against the decedent's estate. The date shall be not less than 3 nor more than 4 months from the date of the order. If a claim is not filed by the deadline, the consequences provided in s. 859.02 apply.”
10. In re Estate of Stocking

    646 N.W.2d 854 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002)

    • Motion for summary judgment

    All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1997-98 version unless otherwise indicated. Wisconsin Stat. § 859.01 states: