McGlashan

Winding Creek v. McGlashan

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 363·44 Cal. App. 4th 933·52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 236·96 Daily Journal DAR 4715·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2830
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 24, 1996A068473California3,057 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer of various attorney defendants on statute of limitations grounds. Following plaintiffs’ appeal, we hold that the third amended complaint relates back to an earlier pleading filed before the statute of limitations had run and, accordingly, is not time barred. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we further conclude the third amended complaint adequately alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation against the attorney defendants. The judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Background

I. The Partnerships

The third amended complaint reveals the following facts, which we assume to be true for purposes of this appeal. (Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1097 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 ].) Plaintiffs Winding Creek, Forest Glen Associates, Amber Forest, and Glen Woods are limited partnerships formed in 1985 for the purpose of investing in a Nevada County mobilehome park. Until July 1991, defendant Montross Barber Investments, Inc. (MBI), owned and managed by defendants G. Michael Montross and George A. Barber, was the general partner of each of…

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.