Battuello v. Battuello
Decision Date | 09 June 1998 |
Docket Number | No. A080011,A080011 |
Citation | 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 548,64 Cal.App.4th 842 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4417 Craig BATTUELLO, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Ellen BATTUELLO, Individually and as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendants/Respondents. |
Ronald Larson, Lisa M. Carvalho, Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, San Francisco, Shannon Richards, Napa, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
James R. Rose, St. Helena, for Defendants and Respondents.
Appellant Craig Battuello filed a complaint against his mother, both individually and in her capacity as trustee of a family trust, and against his deceased father's estate, seeking to establish an interest in a Napa County vineyard that he claimed his father had promised to give to him. Appellant's mother, acting individually, as trustee of the trust, and apparently on behalf of her husband's estate, demurred to the complaint, arguing they were entitled to prevail, as a matter of law, because the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Appellant now appeals from the ensuing judgment claiming the trial court interpreted the applicable statute of limitations incorrectly. We agree and will reverse the judgment.
Since this is an appeal from a judgment entered after a demurrer, we must treat the allegations of the complaint as true. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.) So construed, the facts of this case are as follows.
Appellant has, for many years, worked on the family vineyard located in the Napa Valley. Ever since appellant was a young boy, his father, Dominic, and his mother, Ellen, told appellant repeatedly that they would give him the vineyard when Dominic died. In reliance on those promises, appellant went to college to learn the formal aspects of running a business; and from 1970 through 1995, appellant farmed and managed the vineyard.
In 1988, Dominic and Ellen executed a trust which specified that appellant would receive the vineyard upon the death of the survivor of Dominic and Ellen.
Dominic died on December 10, 1995. Shortly thereafter, appellant learned that in 1994, Dominic and Ellen had executed another trust and related documents (the 1994 trust) which stated that appellant would not receive the vineyard as he had been promised.
Appellant objected when he learned the terms of terms of the 1994 trust, and he entered into settlement negotiations with his mother and her legal advisors. As a result of those negotiations, Ellen promised appellant he would receive the vineyard by no later than the end of 1996. In reliance on those promises, appellant refrained from making any objection when Ellen filed a petition in the superior court to confirm that the 1994 trust had title to the vineyard. In December 1996, the court did, in fact, rule that the trust had title to the vineyard pursuant to the 1994 trust document.
Shortly thereafter, Ellen repudiated the settlement agreement; and she took the position that appellant did not have any right to the vineyard other than that to which he might be entitled pursuant to the 1994 trust. Faced with this breach of the settlement agreement, and the potential loss of the vineyard, appellant filed the present complaint against Ellen, both individually and in her capacity as trustee of the trust, and against Dominic's estate. The individual causes of action will be set forth in more detail below, but the thrust of the complaint was clear: Appellant sought to enforce his father's promise to give him the vineyard when he died.
Ellen, acting individually, as trustee of the trust, and apparently on behalf of Dominic's estate, demurred to the complaint arguing they were entitled to prevail, as a matter of law, because the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 (section 366.2). The trial court agreed and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. This appeal followed.
The first issue is whether the trial court properly ruled that the statute of limitations set forth in section 366.2, which governs causes of action that exist at the time of a person's death, was applicable in this case. That section states, in pertinent part, "If a person against whom an action may be brought on a liability of the person, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and whether accrued or not accrued, dies before the expiration of the applicable limitations period, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced within one year after the date of death, and the limitations period that would have been applicable does not apply." (Id., subd. (a)(1).)
Appellant contends that section 366.2 cannot be applied to a cause of action alleging a contract to make a will because, as a general rule, such a cause of action does not come into existence until after the promisor has died (see In re Marriage of Edwards (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 456, 460, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 138); and therefore, the cause of action neither "accrue[s]" prior to the promisor's death nor "survives" his death.
We reject the argument. While appellant correctly cites the general rule, an exception exists where the promisor has made an inter vivos transfer of property specifically covered by the contract. (See Brown v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d 559, 564, 212 P.2d 878; Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 593, 2 Cal.Rptr. 609, 349 P.2d 289.) In that situation, the promisee may seek equitable relief against the promisor during the promisor's lifetime. (Ibid.; see also Westbrook v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 703, 711, 222 Cal.Rptr. 317.) The exception applies in this case. Appellant alleges in his complaint that, in 1994, Dominic transferred the vineyard into a trust in such a way that appellant would no longer receive the property as he had been promised. Since Dominic allegedly made an inter vivos transfer of the vineyard, appellant had a cause of action against him prior to his death. 1 Since such a cause of action existed, section 366.2 applied to this case.
In the trial court, appellant argued that even if the statute of limitations set forth in section 366.2 applied, respondents should be equitably estopped from asserting that statute as a defense. The trial court rejected this argument based on section 366.2, subdivision (a)(2) that states, "The limitations period provided in this section for commencement of an action is not tolled or extended for any reason." Appellant now claims the court incorrectly concluded the quoted language prevented it from applying the principles of equitable estoppel. We agree.
While section 366.2 clearly states that the one-year statute of limitations set forth therein may not be "tolled" or "extended," it says nothing about equitable estoppel. The doctrines are distinct. As one court noted in a similar context, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lauter v. Anoufrieva
...a claimant not to file a suit within the limitations period...." Id. at 803, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 726; see also Battuello v. Battuello, 64 Cal. App.4th 842, 847, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 548 (1998) (equitable estoppel applies in circumstances "in which a party will be estopped from asserting the statute of......
-
Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc.
...invalid or that Chao intended that his rejection would be seen as a statement that the offer was not invalid.Battuello v. Battuello (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 842, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, on which Bigler-Engler relies, is distinguishable. In that case, the plaintiff alleged "that during the settleme......
-
Doheny Park Terrace Home-Owners Ass'n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange
...ways. They each arise under different circumstances, have different rationales and different predicates. (Battuello v. Battuello (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 842, 847-848, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 548.) Equitable estoppel does not "extend" a limitations period "`but rather comes into play only after the lim......
-
McDONALD v. ANTELOPE VALLEY Cmty. Coll. Dist.
...period be tolled except under those circumstances specified in the statute,” disallows tolling otherwise]; Battuello v. Battuello (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 842, 847, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 548 [recognizing Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2, which bars tolling “for any reason except as provided” therein, may not......
-
Death of a Litigant: What Is a Trusts and Estates Litigator to Do?
...v. Anderson (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 135, 140; Bradley v. Breen, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 805-806; Battuello v. Battuello (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 842, 846; Dawes v. Rich (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 24, 36.53. See Estate of Bonzi, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1105-1106 (estate was equitably estopp......
-
Death of a Litigant: What Is a Trusts and Estates Litigator to Do?
...See Anderson v. Anderson, 41 Cal.App.4th 135,140 (1995); Bradley v. Breen, 73 Cal.App.4th 798, 805-06 (1999); Battuello v. Battuello, 64 Cal.App.4th 842, 846 (1998); Dawes v. Rich, 60 Cal.App.4th 24, 36 (1997).30. See Probate Code § 9100.31. Bradley, 73 Cal.App.4th 798, 805-06; cf. Burgos v......
-
Alice in Tulsa-land: the Dobler Effect on Creditors of Revocable Trusts
...301, at 304, note 1.17. Rumsey, supra, , 24 Cal. 4th 301, at 309.18. For example, Family Code § 914.19. Battuello v. Battuello (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 842.20. Id.21. Burgos v. Tamulonis (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 757 is another a case applying equitable estoppel, although the court did not use t......