Horst v. Lowthorp Richards McMillan Miller & Templeman CA2/6

Filed 10/17/25 Horst v. Lowthorp Richards McMillan Miller & Templeman CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ANNA HORST, 2d Civ. No. B341083 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2022- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00568983-CU-CO-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

LOWTHORP RICHARDS MCMILLAN MILLER & TEMPLEMAN,

Defendant and Respondent.

Anna Horst appeals from the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained the demurrer to her first amended complaint without leave to amend. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Respondent Lowthorp Richards McMillan Miller & Templeman (the Law Firm) represented Anna1 in her divorce proceedings. Ronald Horst, Anna’s father, executed an

1 Due to the shared Horst surname, we use first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.

“Agreement for Legal Services” (the agreement) in 2014. Ronald agreed to retain the Law Firm and pay fees for their representation. In September 2017, Anna terminated her relationship with the Law Firm and obtained new counsel. Ronald passed away in 2019. In 2022, and as Ronald’s successor in interest, Anna filed a lawsuit against the Law Firm seeking a rescission of contract due to mutual mistake. Anna alleged Ronald and the Law Firm mistakenly entered into a legal services agreement, rather than a third-party guarantor agreement, and sought the Law Firm’s return of the money Ronald paid to them. Anna alleged the Law Firm sent Ronald the final billing invoice on October 19, 2017, and that Ronald made his final payment in December 2017. The Law Firm demurred to the operative amended complaint. In sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court concluded Anna’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure2 section 340.6 because Anna knew or should have known of the facts relevant to her claim of alleged mistake no later than October 19, 2017, the date of the final billing invoice to Ronald. The court reasoned: “The alleged mistake occurred on or about April 28, 2014 and continued to October 19, 2017 when the final billing invoice was sent. . . . Plaintiff may have been unaware of the legal theory followed by current counsel but knew or should have known all of the facts by then.” The trial court also concluded Anna failed to state a claim because she failed to plead facts showing the alleged mistake was material. Even if Ronald