Chapter 15 - § 15.17 • LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (C.R.S. § 15-12-109)

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 15.17 • LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (C.R.S. § 15-12-109)

If a person entitled to bring an action dies before the applicable statute of limitations has expired, his or her personal representative may bring it within one year after the issuance of letters even though the period of limitation otherwise computed would have expired.⁸⁸ However, another Code provision seems to shorten this period to four months after death, leaving a doubt as to which provision prevails.⁸⁹ If the decedent was under a disability at death, there may be a further extension of time.⁹⁰

Unless otherwise provided by statute, the statute of limitations for a cause of action against the decedent is computed in the same manner as though he or she had lived.⁹¹ Under C.R.S. § 15-12-802, however, the running of any statute of limitations measured from an event other than death and notice to creditors is suspended for four months following the death of the decedent but resumes thereafter as to claims not otherwise barred. Under this section, the filing of a claim is equivalent to the commencement of a separate proceeding on the claim.

Statutes of limitation may be subject to tolling, while non-claim statutes, which deprive the court of jurisdiction to proceed, may not. See Chapter 16, "Claims Against Estate," note 96, and Estate of Kubby;⁹² but see Estate of Ongaro,⁹³ discussed in § 16.2.5, which appears to change the long-standing rule regarding jurisdiction to proceed.

See § 35.7 for a further discussion of limitation of actions against fiduciaries and § 16.2.7 as to limitation on claims against decedents' estates.

In Currier v. Sutherland,⁹⁴ the plaintiffs, who were injured in a vehicle accident, filed a timely complaint against the driver (who had died seven months before the action was filed). The statute of limitations ran four days after the plaintiffs filed their complaint. Subsequently, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to name the driver's estate. The trial court properly dismissed the matter because of the notice requirements of the curative statute. C.R.C.P. 15(d) did not apply since the estate was not in existence. The amended complaint did not relate back to the date of the original complaint and was time barred.

--------

Notes:

^[88] C.R.S. § 15-12-109.

^[89] C.R.S. § 15-12-802(2).

^[90] C.R.S. § 13-81-103(1)(b).

^[91] 31 Am. Jur. 2d Extrs. & Admrs. § 744; 54 C.J.S. Limitation of Actions § 241.

...