Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Estate of Monge

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 5, 2004No. 02-PR-456Published

1DissentKing, Senior Judge

Because I disagree with the majority’s holding that all creditors who have filed in the domiciliary probate proceeding in Puerto Rico and of whom the personal representative had actual knowledge should be treated as if they had filed in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C.Code § 20-343(d) (2001), I respectfully dissent. The majority’s holding renders D.C.Code § 20-343(d) essentially meaningless. That statute provides that “[ujnless a release of a validly recorded claim has been recorded or the claim has finally been determined in favor of the personal representative, such claim shall…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. District of Columbia v. GanttDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Sackett, Chapman, Brown & Cross v. OsgoodCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API