Estate of Marbaix CA2/7

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Bagby argues that the trial court erred in admitting the 2006 will to probate and in granting Respondents’ petition to distribute the estate pursuant to that will because Bagby had established the existence of a valid 2009 will that revoked the 2006 will upon its execution. Bagby also asserts that he was unable to challenge the probate of the 2006 will prior to July 2012 because he had not learned of Marbaix’s death until after he returned from his tour of duty in Iraq in November 2011. Respondents contend that Bagby’s post-probate contest was untimely because he did not file his objections within the 120-day statute of limitations set forth in section 8270. Respondents also claim that Bagby’s proffered reason for his late filing must be rejected because it was not raised before the trial court and does not provide a sufficient basis for setting aside the trial court’s order. Based on the limited record before us, we conclude that Bagby’s claim was time-barred.

I. Relevant Law

Section 8270 provides that “[w]ithin 120 days after a will is admitted to probate, any interested person, other than a party to a will contest and other than a person who had…