Estates sometimes inherit claims against third parties from their decedent that could have been filed before death, but were not filed by the decedent during lifetime. A Kentucky statute imposing a time limit on how long such claims can be filed after the decedent's death was recently interpreted by the Kentucky Supreme Court. See Davenport v. Kindred Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, No. 2023-SC-0039-DG (Ky. Oct. 24, 2024).

The statute, KRS 413.180(1), gives the personal representative of the estate "one year after the qualification of the representative" to file if the limitations period would otherwise end earlier after the decedent's death.

The Davenport case turned on when the one year period for a personal representative to file suit commenced. The Spencer District Court had signed the Order appointing the personal representative on September 11, 2018, but the Clerk did not enter the Order until September 21, 2018. Because the personal representative of the estate did not file a medical malpractice/wrongful death suit until September 20, 2019, a critical issue arose as to when the one-year statute of limitation had started running.

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed that the one-year time period begins on the date “ when a judge signs the order appointing the representative.” Davenport, No. 2023-SC-0039-DG, slip op. at 9. Because the relevant statutes did not clearly define what "qualification" of the personal representative means, the Court found that the “date of qualification” would otherwise become "hopelessly inscrutable.” Id. At 10. As a result, the Court concluded that the personal representative qualifies at the time that a probate judge signs an order of appointment, as opposed to the date that such an order is actually entered by the Clerk of the District Court.

In probate practice circles, the word "qualification" has a different technical meaning. The personal representative "qualifies" by accepting the appointment, taking the oath of office and posting a bond for the faithful performance of the personal representative’s duties. Although this meaning of the word “qualification” was not considered by the Court’s majority opinion, Justice Lambert noted in his dissent that the majority had ignored statutory language indicating that, “[e]very fiduciary, before entering upon the execution of a trust, shall receive letters of appointment from the District Court having jurisdiction as now fixed by law.” Id. At 13 n.6 (quoting KRS 395.105).

The Kentucky Supreme Court’s opinion in Davenport could well affect computation of time limits under a variety of Kentucky statutes regarding estates which run from "qualification" of the personal representative, including the following:

• Time period before an estate can be distributed, under KRS 395.170;
• Time limit for filing an Inventory of the Estate, under KRS 395.250;
• Time period before an action may be filed against a personal representative, under KRS 395.270; and
• Time period before an action to settle an estate may be brought, under KRS 395.510:

Given the number of other Kentucky statutes which have time limits measured from the “qualification” of the personal representative, we could see further cases on this issue.