care and that Michael had not reimbursed her for improvements she made to her house while caring for Marjorie. Mary also claimed Michael had *754 improperly dissipated property and mismanaged both parents' estates.
4. Personal representative Sue issued a disallowance of these claims in December 2008, asserting that the claims were unfounded and time-barred under both the nonclaim statute and the applicable statutes of limitations. Mary petitioned for an extension of time to initiate proceedings on her disallowed claims. Sue opposed the motion, arguing that no extension could be allowed because all of Mary's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.[3] Mary did not respond to the merits of Sue's arguments. The superior court denied Mary's extension petition on grounds that her claims were barred by applicableand that she therefore was not entitled to an extension of time to initiate proceedings on her disallowed claims, Mary argues her claims should not be barred by the nonclaim statute because she had not been given notice the nonclaim period had begun to run.
7. The issue before the superior court was neither the merits of Mary's claims nor the merits of personal representative Sue's disallowance of Mary's claims for failure to comply with the nonclaim statute. The issue before the court was Mary's requested extension of time to contest Sue's disallowance of Mary's claims. The court denied the extension because the applicable statutes of limitations already had run on all of Mary's claims. Mary did not address the statute of limitations issues in the superior court or