Battuello

Battuello v. Battuello

Bad Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 517·64 Cal. App. 4th 842·75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548·98 Daily Journal DAR 6035·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4417
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 9, 1998A080011California1,814 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peterson, J.

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.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

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.…

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.