Plumlee

Plumlee v. Poag

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 3d 541·198 Cal. Rptr. 66·1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1479
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 1984Civ. 68711California3,905 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schauer, J.

Plaintiff Plumlee appeals from an order of dismissal entered after the court sustained defendants’ general demurrer, without leave to amend, to appellant’s second amended complaint for breach of contract. Two issues are before this court: First, whether Plumlee’s claim is barred for failure to comply with the limitations period contained in Probate Code section 714; and second, whether the alleged oral contract is subject to the defense of the statute of frauds as contained in Civil Code section 1624, subdivisions 1 and 6. We will decide both issues in favor of Plumlee and reverse.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Respondents Poag and Price are the appointed executors, and respondent Treharne the appointed administator-with-will-annexed, of the estate of Ben Weingart, who died on December 22, 1980. Following publication by respondents of the notice required by Probate Code sections 333 and 700. Plumlee timely filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for $180,000. He received notice of rejection of his claim pursuant to Probate Code section 714 on November 6, 1981.

On January 26, 1982 Plumlee filed a complaint for breach of contract in the Superior Court of Los Angeles…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.