{ "id": 4242912, "name": "Joshua MARCHAND, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Rebecca L. MARCHAND, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Alfred G. Marchand, Respondent-Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Marchand v. Marchand", "decision_date": "2008-10-14", "docket_number": "No. 30,608", "first_page": "378", "last_page": "385", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "145 N.M. 378" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "2008-NMSC-065" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "199 P.3d 281" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "103 N.M. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 711357 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64, 65" }, { "page": "1009, 1010" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/103/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.33", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(g)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2007-NMCA-138", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3691992 ], "weight": 12, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 24" }, { "page": "\u00b6 27" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 29-32" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 31-32" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/142/0795-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.47", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Stat. 239", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 104.31", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(2)" }, { "page": "597-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.44", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"The presumed non-economic losses for decedents shall be ... $100,000 for the spouse and each dependent of the deceased victim.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Fed. Reg. 11,233", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Fed. Reg.", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "11,239" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.43", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Stat. 238", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Stat.", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Stat. 237", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Stat.", "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.52", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.4", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 104.2", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Stat. 240", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 U.S.C. \u00a7 40101", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 961, "char_count": 27653, "ocr_confidence": 0.692, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08, "percentile": 0.2873501505300116 }, "sha256": "8d3fb0316a42a9fbabfe928eba423a44b4bdcbef85cb5305b7161b2137e96102", "simhash": "1:13637a0c745546cc", "word_count": 4341 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:53:47.998828+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "WE CONCUR: EDWARD L. CH\u00c1YEZ, Chief Justice, PATRICIO M. SERNA, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, and CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justices." ], "parties": [ "Joshua MARCHAND, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Rebecca L. MARCHAND, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Alfred G. Marchand, Respondent-Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nBOSSON, Justice.\n{1} Alfred G. Marchand (Alfred) was a flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 175, one of the two airplanes that terrorists caused to crash into the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. He was the sole New Mexico resident to die in the tragic events of that day. Alfred died intestate, survived by his wife Rebecca Marehand (Rebecca), his adult son by a previous marriage Joshua Marchand (Joshua), and his dependent stepson Trae Hale (Trae), Rebecca\u2019s son by a previous marriage. Rebecca filed for probate of Alfred\u2019s estate (the Estate) in September of 2001 and was appointed Personal Representative. The probate of the Estate was closed, and Rebecca discharged as Personal Representative, on December 5, 2003. Joshua received a distribution from the Estate in the amount of $16,553.25, along with a 1989 Chevy Blazer and other personal property. The remainder of the Estate was distributed to Rebecca as Alfred\u2019s surviving spouse.\n{2} Rebecca applied to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (\u201cthe Fund\u201d) for victim\u2019s relief and federal aid on November 28, 2003. The dispute in question involves the proper distribution of the award from that Fund. Before we discuss the specific award in this case, we first set forth a brief background of the Fund and the federal legislation that created it.\nSeptember 11th Victim Compensation Fund\n{3} The Fund was created as part of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (Air Stabilization Act), 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 40101 (2001), enacted by Congress to provide compensation for those injured or killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Individual claimants were afforded an opportunity to receive an award from the Fund, thereby waiving their right to file civil actions for damages related to the events of September 11, 2001, except to recover collateral source obligations, such as insurance, or to pursue actions against the terrorists responsible for the attacks. Air Stabilization Act, 115 Stat. 240 \u00a7 405(c)(3)(B)\u00ae (2001).\n{4} In the case of a person who was killed in the attacks, the Air Stabilization Act designated the Personal Representative of the Estate as the sole eligible claimant. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 104.2(a)(2)-(3), 104.4 (2008). After appointment as Personal Representative by a court of competent jurisdiction, the claimant had to provide written notice of the claim to beneficiaries and interested parties to the Estate. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.4(b). Upon receipt of a Fund award, and absent an agreed upon distribution plan between the beneficiaries of the award, the Personal Representative was legally obligated to distribute the award according to the law of the decedent\u2019s domicile or any applicable state court rulings. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.52 (2008).\n{5} A Special Master appointed by the United States Attorney General oversaw the implementation of the Fund and determined the amounts to be awarded to claimants based upon the harm to the claimant, the facts of the claim, and the individual circumstances of the claimant. Air Stabilization Act, 115 Stat. 237-38 \u00a7 404(a) (2001); \u00a7 405(b)(l)(B)(i)-(ii). Fund awards included damages for both economic and non-economic losses. Id., 115 Stat. 238 \u00a7 405(b)(l)(B)(I).\n{6} Economic loss, defined as \u201cany pecuniary loss resulting from harm,\u201d id. \u00a7 402(5), was calculated through a methodology that took into account anticipated lost benefits such as income and earnings. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.43(a) (2008). Non-economic damages were defined as \u201closses for physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium ... and all other nonpeeuniary losses of any kind or nature.\u201d Air Stabilization Act, 115 Stat. 237 \u00a7 402(7) (2001). Because of the inherent difficulty in determining non-economic losses for individual claimants, the regulations designated uniform non-economic loss awards of $250,000 for the Estate of the decedent and $100,000 for the spouse and each dependent of the victim. 67 Fed. Reg. 11,233, 11,239 (Mar. 13, 2002); 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.44 (2008). The Special Master could deviate from such \u201cpresumed\u201d non-economic loss amounts in extraordinary circumstances. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 104.31(b)(2), 104.33(f)(2) (2008).\n{7} The Fund was remarkable for its efforts to guarantee substantial compensation, as opposed to just minimal assistance, for victims of the September 11th attacks. See generally Kenneth S. Abraham & Kyle D. Logue, The Genie and the Bottle: Collateral Sources Under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, 53 De Paul L.Rev. 591, 594 (Winter 2003). However, there was also a concern to avoid over-compensation. See id. at 597-98. Important to this appeal, Congress required the Special Master to reduce a claimant\u2019s total award \u201cby the amount of the collateral source compensation the claimant has received or is entitled to receive.\u201d Air Stabilization Act, 115 Stat. 239 \u00a7 405(b)(6). Collateral source compensation included life insurance proceeds, pension funds, and other death benefits programs. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.47(a) (2008).\n{8} After the Special Master determined the amount to be awarded on a given claim, he would send a letter to the Personal Representative detailing the final award determination. The letter broke down the various components of the award, specified the collateral offsets and beneficiaries to whom those offsets were attributable, and provided other information to guide the Personal Representative in distributing the award according to the law of the decedent\u2019s domicile. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.52. The Special Master\u2019s award determinations were final and not subject to judicial review. Air Stabilization Act, 115 Stat. 238-39 \u00a7 405(b)(3).\nClaim on Behalf of Alfred G. Marchand\n{9} Rebecca filed a timely claim with the Fund as the Personal Representative of the Estate. Her efforts in pursuing the award included retaining a New York law firm, traveling to New York City for testimony, and preparing an economic loss analysis of Alfred\u2019s anticipated income. Joshua did not participate in filing the claim with the Fund, nor was he required to. Rebecca submitted a list of all individuals entitled to a Fund award and agreed to distribute any award according to New Mexico law. Though Rebecca submitted a proposed distribution plan for the award, there is no indication in the record that the Special Master ever approved that plan.\n{10} The Special Master detailed the final award determination in a letter to Rebecca dated June 24, 2004. The total award before collateral source offsets was $1,847,969.88, comprised of an economic loss component of $1,397,969.88, and non-economic loss awards of $100,000 each for Rebecca and Trae, as spouse and dependent child of the decedent, and $250,000 for the Estate. The letter specified the relevant state law that should govern distribution of each portion of the award. The economic loss portion of the award was to be distributed according to New Mexico wrongful death law; the non-economic loss award to the Estate was to be distributed according to New Mexico intestate law, there being no will of record. The non-economic loss awards to Rebecca and Trae were to go directly to them.\n{11} However, the Estate did not actually receive $1,847,969.88. Instead, the Estate received a final award of $769,971.88, reflecting a deduction of $1,077,998 in collateral offsets mandated by the Act, due primarily to pension benefits paid directly to Rebecca for her own use. The Special Master\u2019s letter broke down the amount of collateral offsets attributed to each individual: $1,012,321 was attributable to the benefits received by Rebecca, $25,000 to the Estate, $23,177 to Trae, and $17,500 to Joshua. The letter also instructed as follows: \u201cGenerally, collateral offsets should first be applied to the share of the individual who received the benefit. Any excess benefit should be applied to the remaining shares of the award.\u201d The proper distribution of the $769,971.88 actually received by the Estate is the subject of this appeal.\nLower Court Proceedings\n{12} On July 27, 2004, Rebecca filed a motion for subsequent administration in the probate court seeking reappointment as Personal Representative for the purpose of distributing the Fund award. Joshua moved for a temporary injunction on July 19, 2004, to prevent Rebecca from distributing the Fund award. Subsequently, both parties stipulated to removing the probate proceedings to district court and to depositing any Fund payments into the court\u2019s registry pending the outcome of the litigation. Both Joshua and Rebecca then moved for summary judgment.\n{13} Before the district court, Joshua argued that Rebecca as Personal Representative was obligated to distribute the Fund award according to New Mexico law and as directed by the Special Master\u2019s letter. The letter specified that the economic loss portion of the award should be distributed according to New Mexico wrongful death law, while the Estate\u2019s non-economic loss award should be distributed according to New Mexico\u2019s intestacy statutes.\n{14} Under the New Mexico wrongful death law, one-half of a wrongful death award goes to the surviving spouse, and the other half goes to the surviving children. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 41-2-3(B) (1939, as amended through 2001). Under New Mexico intestacy statutes, the surviving spouse receives one quarter of the decedent\u2019s separate property, and surviving children receive the remaining three quarters. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 45-2-102 (1975). Thus, Joshua argued that he was entitled to half of the total economic loss award prior to collateral offsets, plus three-fourths of the non-economic loss awards to the Estate, Rebecca, and Trae.\n{15} Rebecca responded that under federal law, the Special Master\u2019s award determination was final and not subject to review. She contended that the economic loss portion of the award was community property, and thus should pass entirely to her as the surviving spouse. She also argued that the $100,000 non-economic loss awards to her and Trae were statutory awards designated for spouses and dependents and were not subject to distribution under intestacy law. Therefore, she reasoned that Joshua was only entitled to $112,000, representing one-half of the non-economic loss award to the Estate after subtracting the $25,000 in collateral offsets allocated to the Estate. Because Joshua had failed to file a claim directly with the Fund or object to the Special Master\u2019s allocation of the award, Rebecca argued that Joshua could not \u201cseek to avoid or rearrange the determination of the Special Master.\u201d\n{16} The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rebecca, holding that (1) the Special Master\u2019s determination of collateral offsets served only to reduce the amount of the total award, and each individual\u2019s share of the award should not be reduced by the amount of collateral benefits attributed to that individual; (2) the $100,000 non-economic loss awards to Rebecca and Trae were part of the Special Master\u2019s final award determination and not subject to review; (3) the non-economic loss award of $250,000 to the Estate, allocated according to New Mexico intestacy law, was to be divided between Joshua (3/4 as surviving child, $187,500) and Rebecca (1/4 as surviving spouse, $62,500); and (4) the remaining $319,971.88 ($769,-971.88-$450,000), as economic loss, was community property and passed entirely to Rebecca. Joshua appealed from this ruling.\n{17} The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in classifying the economic loss award ($319,-971.88) as community property that passed to Rebecca. Instead, the Court of Appeals held that the economic loss award should be distributed according to New Mexico\u2019s wrongful death statute as directed by the Special Master in his June 24, 2004 letter. Marchand v. Marchand, 2007-NMCA-138, \u00b6 24, 142 N.M. 795, 171 P.3d 309. Under the wrongful death statute, Section 41-2-3(B), Rebecca and Joshua would each be entitled to half the economic loss award without any offset against Rebecca for collateral benefits received by her. Rebecca did not seek review of this holding. The Court of Appeals left undisturbed the other rulings of the district court.\n{18} Joshua sought review by this Court, and we granted certiorari to decide whether the collateral benefits assigned to each individual in the Special Master\u2019s letter should be applied to offset that individual\u2019s portion of the award.\nDISCUSSION\nStandard of Review\n{19} This case requires us to interpret the Special Master\u2019s letter, the relevant federal statutes and regulations, and New Mexico law to determine the proper distribution of the Fund award among Alfred\u2019s beneficiaries. These are matters of law that are subject to de novo review. Unfortunately, due to the unique circumstances that gave rise to the Fund, there is little if any law on point to guide us in our decision.\nCollateral Offsets\n{20} Joshua argues that the Court of Appeals did not comply with the Special Master\u2019s directive that collateral offsets be applied to the share of the individual who received the benefit. According to Joshua, this directive requires that individual shares of the award received by Rebecca and Trae be reduced by the amount of collateral benefits assigned to them in the Special Master\u2019s letter. Essentially, Joshua\u2019s position is that it would be unfair for Rebecca to receive any of the Fund award when she has already received over $1 million in collateral benefits which, in turn, served to reduce the global award, lessening the amount left for distribution to Joshua and all other beneficiaries. Thus, Joshua argues that the collateral benefits received by Rebecea and Trae should be deducted from their individual portions of the final award and added to his award to bring it closer to the amount he would have received if not for those collateral benefits given to Rebecca and Trae.\n{21} The calculations under Joshua\u2019s argument would lead to the following result. Rebecca\u2019s share of the award, prior to offsetting for collateral benefits, would equal (a) $100,000 non-economic loss award as Alfred\u2019s spouse, (b) one-quarter of the $250,000 non-economic loss award to the Estate ($62,500), as directed by the New Mexico intestacy statutes, and (c) one-half of the total economic loss award (prior to subtracting collateral offsets) of $1,397,969.88, or $698,984.94, as directed under the New Mexico wrongful death statutes. When these amounts are added together, Rebecca\u2019s share would come to $861,484.94. But Rebecca has already received $1,012,321.00 in collateral benefits, and therefore when one is offset against the other Rebecca would not be entitled to anything at all from the Fund award. Turning to Trae\u2019s share of the award, $100,000 in non-economic loss as a dependent of Alfred, Joshua would offset Trae\u2019s collateral benefits ($23,177) and reduce Trae\u2019s share to $76,823. When Trae\u2019s $76,823 is subtracted from the final award of $769,971.88, Joshua would receive the balance or $693,148.88.\n{22} Rebecca argues that the collateral offsets are only applied initially by the Special Master to reduce the gross award, but should not be applied to reduce individual allocations from the total award. Thus, she argues that the $769,971.88 actually received from the Special Master already takes into account the collateral benefits, and the final award should simply be divided as is, without accounting for each beneficiary\u2019s collateral offsets. The calculations under Rebecca\u2019s argument would be as follows. The Special Master awarded a total amount of $1,847,969.88 and then reduced that amount by the total amount of collateral benefits received by all the beneficiaries to reach a final award amount of $769,971.88. This final amount would then be distributed under state law as directed by the Special Master\u2019s letter. Rebecca and Trae would each get $100,000. The $250,000 in non-eeonomic loss would be distributed according to New Mexico intestacy law-one-quarter, or $62,500, to Rebecca and three-quarters, or $187,500, to Joshua. Finally, the remaining $319,971.88 would be divided equally between Rebecca and Joshua pursuant to wrongful death law, each receiving $159,985.94. Thus, Trae\u2019s total share of the Fund award would be $100,000; Joshua\u2019s would be $347,485.94; and Rebecca\u2019s would be $322,485.94. This is also the result counseled by the Court of Appeals.\n{23} Both Rebecca and the Court of Appeals construe Joshua\u2019s argument as advocating an impermissible \u201creallocation\u201d of what the Special Master has already calculated which would be contrary to federal law. We disagree. See Marchand, 2007-NMCA-138, \u00b6 27, 142 N.M. 795, 171 P.3d 309. It is true that the Special Master\u2019s calculations are final. But Joshua does not claim that the Special Master incorrectly calculated the amount of collateral benefits attributable to each beneficiary. Rather, Joshua contends that the amount of collateral benefits assigned to each beneficiary should be applied against that individual\u2019s share of the award, thereby offsetting each person\u2019s share in proportion to the collateral benefits that person has already received. We read the Special Master\u2019s letter as directing the application of those offsets to the individual shares, and to that extent we agree with Joshua. However, as we discuss later, we do not agree with Joshua that the offsets apply to all components of the award.\nApplication of Collateral Offsets Generally\n{24} It is true, as Rebecca argues, that the Act and accompanying regulations do not expressly require that an individual\u2019s share of a Fund award must be reduced by the amount of collateral benefits that individual received. However, the Air Stabilization Act gives the Special Master power to administer the Fund and determine the amounts to be awarded to individual claimants. Further, the Special Master was authorized to \u201cprovide such other information as appropriate to provide adequate guidance for a court of competent jurisdiction.\u201d 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.33(g). In this case, the Special Master\u2019s letter to Rebecca instructs that \u201c[generally, collateral offsets should first be applied to the share of the individual who received the benefit.\u201d The Court of Appeals concluded that this language was without any legal effect, included solely to provide information regarding the origin and calculation of collateral offsets.\n{25} We disagree that the Special Master\u2019s language has no effect on the award distributions. A plain reading of this language indicates a directive to the Personal Representative to be followed in calculating the appropriate distribution of the remaining award among the beneficiaries. We also note that the Special Master\u2019s letter provided a breakdown of collateral offsets, showing the amount of collateral benefits attributable to each individual beneficiary \u2014 $1,012,321 to Rebecca, $25,000 to the Estate, $23,177 to Trae, and $17,500 to Joshua. This breakdown, taken in conjunction with the language directing that collateral offsets \u201cshould first be applied to the share of the individual who received the benefit,\u201d persuades us that the Special Master intended that individual collateral offsets should be applied as an offset to individual awards. If that were not the Special Master\u2019s intent, there would seem to be no reason to set forth a breakdown of collateral benefits individually, as opposed to just one lump-sum award.\n{26} Our interpretation of the Special Master\u2019s letter is also supported by general principles of fairness. We observe that if Rebecca had not received $1,012,321 in collateral benefits, and the others had not received collateral benefits in much smaller amounts (a total of $65,677), the final award for economic loss alone would have totaled $1,397,969.88. After distributing this amount according to the wrongful death statute, Section 41-2-3(B), Joshua would have received half, or $698,984.94. Even subtracting Joshua\u2019s collateral benefits actually received, he would have been entitled to nearly that amount. However, Rebecca\u2019s disproportionate share of collateral benefits to her personally reduced the total award substantially, and thereby reduced Joshua\u2019s share as well to only $159,985.94, being one-half of $319,971.88. Thus, Rebecca\u2019s collateral benefits served to reduce Joshua\u2019s share of the award by over $500,000.\n{27} Under these circumstances, the Special Master\u2019s directive embodies a basic notion of fairness. It seeks to avoid excessive compensation for one beneficiary at the expense of the remaining beneficiaries. See, e.g., Strickland v. Roosevelt County Rural Elec. Coop., 103 N.M. 63, 64, 65, 702 P.2d 1008, 1009, 1010 (Ct.App.1984) (holding that the proceeds of a wrongful death award should be divided into equal shares and each beneficiary should reimburse the compensation carrier from his equal share of the total judgment \u201cthe amount of workers compensation benefits received by that beneficiary,\u201d and noting that \u201c[tjhis makes each beneficiary whole and avoids double recovery by either\u201d). For the purpose of clarity we repeat: Rebecca is not entitled to any of the economic loss component of the award. Joshua is entitled to all of the individual economic loss award.\nCollateral Offsets as Applied to the Estate\u2019s Non-Economic Loss Award\n{28} As for the $250,000 in non-economic losses awarded to the Estate, we apply each individual\u2019s collateral offsets to that individual\u2019s share. As previously discussed, Joshua is entitled to three-quarters of the Estate\u2019s $250,000 non-economic loss award, or $187,500, pursuant to New Mexico intestacy statutes. Section 45-2-102(A)(2). Joshua\u2019s collateral benefits of $17,500 reduce his total share to $170,000. Rebecca\u2019s collateral benefits of $1,012,321 entirely eliminate her share of the non-economic loss to the Estate.\nRebecca\u2019s and Trae\u2019s Non-Economic Loss Awards\n{29} While we agree with Joshua that Rebecca\u2019s collateral benefits should be offset against her share of the economic loss award, reducing it to zero, we disagree that those offsets apply to Rebecca\u2019s personal non-economic loss award. Rebecca\u2019s award of $100,000 in non-economic \u201cpresumed\u201d damages was a fixed amount set by federal regulation for spouses of deceased victims. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 104.44 (\u201cThe presumed non-economic losses for decedents shall be ... $100,000 for the spouse and each dependent of the deceased victim.\u201d). That portion of the award served to compensate Rebecca for her pain and suffering as well as loss of consortium resulting from Alfred\u2019s death. See Air Stabilization Act, 115 Stat. 237 \u00a7 402(7) (defining \u201cnoneconomic losses\u201d). Such damages are personal to Rebecca and do not come at Joshua\u2019s expense; they would not have been part of the overall award if Joshua had been the only beneficiary who sought compensation from the Fund. Thus, they do not detract unfairly from what Joshua would have otherwise been entitled to receive if not for Rebecca. The same is true for the $100,000 awarded to Trae as Alfred\u2019s dependent. Therefore, we hold that the $100,000 in non-economic losses awarded by the Special Master individually to both Rebecca and Trae (a total of $200,000) is not subject to offset for collateral benefits. Each is entitled to $100,000 from the total award.\nSummary of the Award\n{30} For the reasons stated, Rebecca and Trae each receive $100,000 not subject to offsets. From the final Fund award of $769,971.88, that leaves $569,971.88. As previously explained, Rebecca\u2019s collateral benefits caused the final award from the Special Master to be reduced dramatically, thereby causing Joshua\u2019s share to be substantially smaller. Therefore, the entire balance of the award, or $569,971.88, is awarded to Joshua.\nJoshua\u2019s Claims Against Rebecca for Fraud, Malfeasance, or Accounting\n{31} Joshua also appeals the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment on his claims of malfeasance, fraud, and request for accounting. These claims challenge Rebecca\u2019s conduct as Personal Representative in connection with the division of Alfred\u2019s assets other than the Fund, specifically, certain insurance proceeds and real estate that was Alfred\u2019s separate property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Joshua\u2019s allegations were time-barred, and that there was no basis for any claims against Rebecca for fraud, malfeasance, or an accounting, either individually or as personal representative of the estate. Marchand, 2007-NMCA-138, \u00b6\u00b6 29-32, 142 N.M. 795, 171 P.3d 309. We agree with the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court\u2019s summary judgment with respect to Joshua\u2019s claims of fraud, malfeasance, or accounting.\n{32} Rule 12 \u2014 201(A)(2) NMRA required that Joshua file an appeal within thirty days of the Probate Court\u2019s December 5, 2003 Order (\u201cA notice of appeal shall be filed ... within thirty (30) days after the judgment or order appealed from is filed in the district court clerk\u2019s office\u201d). Joshua neither appealed the Order, nor pursued a claim of breach of fiduciary duty within the prescribed statutory period. Joshua argues that Rebecca\u2019s reappointment as Personal Representative for the purposes of administering the Fund award should restart the statute of limitations. We find no merit in this argument. Joshua\u2019s claims pertain to issues decided in the original probate proceedings that were resolved in the Order of Complete Settlement and Discharge of Representative. The limitations period for challenging that Order expired prior to the reinstatement of Rebecca as Personal Representative for purposes of distributing the Fund award. We will not start an entirely new limitations period, triggered by the reopening of the probate to address the Fund award, for Joshua to raise claims entirely unrelated to the Fund award \u2014 claims that he failed to raise during the limitations period triggered by closure of the original probate proceedings.\n{33} We also agree with the Court of Appeals that the record does not support Joshua\u2019s contentions that Rebecca improperly or fraudulently took money received from the Fund so as to lift the six-month statute of limitations for pursuing a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a personal representative under NMSA 1978, \u00a7 45-3-1005 (1975). We affirm the district court\u2019s denial of Joshua\u2019s claims for fraud, malfeasance or accounting, and we refer the parties to the opinion of the Court of Appeals for a more thorough discussion of the record as it relates to this issue. See Marchand, 2007-NMCA-138, \u00b6\u00b6 31-32, 142 N.M. 795,171 P.3d 309.\nCONCLUSION\n{34} For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Court of Appeals with respect to the application of collateral offsets. We affirm the Court of Appeals on all other matters. The ease is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\n{35} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nWE CONCUR: EDWARD L. CH\u00c1YEZ, Chief Justice, PATRICIO M. SERNA, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, and CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justices.\n. Joshua does not argue that Rebecca actually owes him money, only that she should not receive any money from the Fund so long as the collateral benefits assigned to her outweigh her designated share of the award.", "type": "majority", "author": "BOSSON, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Steven K. Sanders & Associates, L.L.C., Steven K. Sanders, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.", "Stevan J. Schoen, Placitas, NM, for Respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "2008-NMSC-065\n199 P.3d 281\nJoshua MARCHAND, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Rebecca L. MARCHAND, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Alfred G. Marchand, Respondent-Respondent.\nNo. 30,608.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 14, 2008.\nSteven K. Sanders & Associates, L.L.C., Steven K. Sanders, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.\nStevan J. Schoen, Placitas, NM, for Respondent." }, "file_name": "0378-01", "first_page_order": 412, "last_page_order": 419 }