Kerby

This case raises the question whether the requirements under our former “nonclaim” statute regarding notice to decedent’s creditors comport with the due process standards announced by the United States Supreme Court in Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope (1988) 485 U.S. 478 [ 99 L.Ed.2d 565 , 108 S.Ct. 1340 ] (hereafter Tulsa). We conclude they do not as to known or reasonably ascertainable creditors. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to bar the claim of appellant James Edward Clark, Jr., and remand for determination of the factual question: was Clark a known or reasonably ascertainable creditor of the estate of Vernon Robert Copeland?

I. Statutory Scheme Governing These Proceedings

Under our “nonclaim” statute and, except as otherwise provided therein, creditors must file their claims against a decedent’s estate in the manner and within the time provided in the Probate Code; failure to file a timely claim generally bars action on the creditor’s claim. (§ 9002.) However, the creditor’s duty to file a claim is not triggered unless the personal representative gives proper notice.

At the operative times, the personal representative was required…