Dugand v. Magnus

California Court of Appeal Jul 15, 1930 No. Docket No. 6991.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a claimant cannot recover on a cause of action different from the one stated in the claim presented to an estate, and that the alleged oral lease agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Furthermore, the decedent's tenancy at will terminated upon his death, rendering the estate not liable for subsequent rent.

Issues

Whether a claimant may recover on a cause of action not stated in the claim presented to the estate.
Whether an oral agreement to lease property for a term exceeding one year is enforceable.
Whether a tenancy at will survives the death of the tenant.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the holder of a claim against an estate cannot maintain an action thereon unless the claim is first presented”

“he can recover only upon the cause of action stated in the claim”

“the action on the new contract alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint could not be maintained”

THE COURT.

The above action was brought to recover from the estate of Eugene E. Magnus, deceased, certain rent which it was alleged the decedent was under obligation to pay.

The decedent was the lessee of an apartment under a written lease from Arthur J. Laib, the owner, for a term commencing August 1, 1925, and ending August 1, 1927. The lessee agreed to pay as rent therefor $165 per month except for six months of the term, namely, the months of December, 1925, February, March and December, 1926, and February and March, 1927, during which it was stipulated that he should enjoy the premises free of rent. He entered into possession and so remained until his death on July 28, 1926. The owner had previously executed a deed of trust of the premises to the California-Pacific Title Insurance Company as security for a loan. On June 22, 1926, the property was sold to pay the debt secured, and was conveyed by the trustee to Charles and Nellie Monson, through whom the plaintiff on January 12, 1927, derived title. The defendant, on October 15, 1926, became the duly appointed and qualified administratrix of the estate of the deceased, and remained in possession of the premises until April 1, 1927, when she vacated the same. It appears that the rent to that date was paid in accordance with the provisions of

[246]

the original lease. On October 16, 1926, the defendant caused notice to the creditors of the deceased to be given, and the plaintiff on June 15, 1927, filed a claim for the rent of the premises for the months of April, May, June and July, 1927, the material portions of the claim being as follows:

“Estate of Eugene E. Magnus, also known as E. E. Magnus, deceased,

“To J. V. Dugand, Dr.

“Rent due or to become due for that certain apartment known as No. 4 contained in that certain apartment house located at 3101 Clay street, together with a garage and store room in basement, $660.00.

“The above claim is founded upon a written lease made and entered into between Arthur J. Laib and the decedent dated June 16th, 1925, a copy of which is hereto annexed marked ‘Exhibit A,’ incorporated herein and made a part hereof.

Dugand v. Magnus

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief