Ayers v. Landow, 666 A.2d 51 (1995)

Citation: Ayers v. Landow, 666 A.2d 51 (1995)
Parent Document: Ayers v. Landow, 666 A.2d 51 (1995)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1995-10-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2381535/ayers-v-landow/ ↗

Full Text

1,360 chars

In resolving the question whether the statute is ambiguous, we should be substantially guided by the determination of this court in Gantt that the probate statute's provision that claims could only be presented "within 6 months after the date of first publication of notice of the appointment of a personal representative" was ambiguous as to whether such presentation could occur before that publication was made. See Gantt, supra, 558 A.2d at 1122 ("This language does not clearly state whether a claim may only be filed within the specified six-month period or may be filed earlier but no later than the end of that period."). It is indisputable that if the legislature that enacted the statute in this case had intended only one of those possible meanings, it could have worded the statute more clearly directing that result. But the statute, as it appears, allows either reading. The trial judge recognized the ambiguity of the statute when he explained that "judges feel differently about this ... it's unfortunate that judges are ruling in different directions on [the issue of what `within three calendar days' requires]." An unambiguous statute is rarely given to differing interpretations by different judges.[2] Just as the statute in Gantt was deemed by this court to be ambiguous, I conclude that the notice statute in this case also is ambiguous.

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text