Kaplan

Sinai Temple v. Kaplan

Good Law
127 Cal. Rptr. 80·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1206·54 Cal. App. 3d 1103
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 1976Civ. 46048California4,231 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephens, J.

—There is no dispute as to the facts. On January 15, 1974, Sinai Temple (Sinai) filed a complaint for recovery of expenses for funeral services and related matters performed by it in connection with the burial of one Martin Kaplan. The defendants were Gloria Kaplan, the administratrix of Martin’s estate, and Morris Kaplan, the father of the deceased. Morris answered the complaint and denied liability by claiming to have executed the contracts on behalf of the estate. Gloria answered by general demurrer and by assertion of the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds. In addition to answering the complaint, Gloria filed a verified cross-complaint on behalf of the estate and Alisa. Cross-defendants answered and denied liability. After' transfer to the superior court, cross-defendants filed motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings. The court entered judgment finding that “cross-defendant, Morris Kaplan, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as to each and every cause of action in the cross-complaint, and the court finds from the moving papers and declarations above referred to that there are no triable issues as to any material fact in the…

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.