Larsen

The statute of limitations serves noble public policies. It “ ‘promote[sj justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.’ [Citations.]” (Parra v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 977, 998 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 822 ].) Its operation in particular cases, however, can be sadly inequitable.

This is just such a case. The equities in favor of claimant Richard H. LaQue could hardly be more compelling. LaQue and his wife provided food, care, and companionship to their neighbor, Paul Ziegler, when Ziegler was sick and alone. At first, they did so out of the goodness of their hearts. Eventually, however, a grateful Ziegler insisted on entering into a written agreement — the validity of which is unquestioned — that in consideration of continued care, LaQue would receive Ziegler’s home upon Ziegler’s death.

On the other hand, the equities in favor of appellant W.C. Cox and Company (Cox) are slim to none. Cox is a soulless 1 corporation in the business of locating missing heirs. It is acting as the attorney in fact for nine residents…