California Court of Appeal Oct 7, 2019 No. E070918Published
Filed 10/7/19
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
Estate of RICHARD EDSON HOLDAWAY, Deceased.
PATRICIA C. EVERETT, E070918 Petitioner and Appellant, (Super.Ct.No. PROPS1400479) v. OPINION RICHARD EVERETT HOLDAWAY, as Personal Representative, etc.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cynthia Ann
Ludvigsen, Judge. Reversed.
Hartnell Law Group, Bryan C. Hartnell and George S. Theios, for Petitioner and
Appellant.
Robbins & Holdaway and Diane E. Robbins for Defendant and Respondent.
Petitioner and appellant Patricia C. Everett (Everett) filed a creditor’s claim
against the estate of Richard Edison Holdaway, seeking repayment of sums she contends
the decedent had owed her. When filed, the claim was timely and tolled the statute of
1
limitations for actions against a decedent, Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2. The
son of the decedent, defendant and respondent Richard Everett Holdaway (Holdaway), in
his capacity as the personal representative of the estate, rejected Everett’s claim, leading
to Everett’s filing a “Complaint for Damages on Rejected Creditor’s Claim” (complaint).
In this appeal, Everett challenges the trial court’s order sustaining without leave to amend
Holdaway’s demurrer to her complaint on the ground that the claim was barred by section
a claim is timely filed in the probate proceedings, it remains timely filed even though the
representative or court acts on a claim by allowing, approving or rejecting the claim
1 Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 states in relevant part as follows: “(a) If a person against whom an action may be brought on a liability of the person, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and whether accrued or not accrued, dies before the expiration of the applicable limitations period, and the cause of action survives, an action may be commenced within one year after the date of death, and the limitations period that would have been applicable does not apply. “(b) The limitations period provided in this section for commencement of an action shall not be tolled or extended for any reason except as provided in any of the following, where applicable: [¶] . . . [¶] “(2) Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code (creditor claims in administration of estates of decedents).”
5
outside the limitations period.” (Dobler, supra, at p. 535; see Prob. Code, §§ 9102,
9352.) A creditor of a decedent is entitled to petition for probate, and may do so to open
probate proceedings in which his or her claim can be filed to toll the statute of
limitations. (Prob. Code, §§ 48, 8000.)
Here, there is no dispute that Everett filed her claim within the Code of Civil
Procedure section 366.2 limitations period, submitting it along with her petition for
probate two days shy of a year after the decedent’s death. Pursuant to Probate Code
section 9352, Everett’s timely filing of her claim tolled the statute of limitations “until
allowance, approval, or rejection.” (Prob. Code, § 9352, subd. (a).) Thereafter, no action
was taken on Everett’s claim until March 10, 2017, when Holdaway, having been
appointed personal representative of the estate, formally rejected it. Pursuant to Probate
Code section 9352, the one-year limitations period on Everett’s claim remained tolled
until that rejection.
Holdaway contends that the one-year limitations period recommenced when
Everett’s petition for probate was dismissed on May 7, 2015, and that it expired two days
later. This is tantamount to arguing that the dismissal of Everett’s petition constitutes a
“rejection” of her claim pursuant to Probate Code 9352. Holdaway cites no case
authority requiring that the court’s dismissal of Everett’s petition be equated with the
dismissal or rejection of her filed creditor’s claim, and we have discovered none. Both
the statutory structure and case authority indicate that the power to reject a claim under
Probate Code section 9352 is that of the personal representative appointed by the court,
not the court itself. For example, in Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509,
6
546, the Court of Appeal commented: “We do not doubt that the probate court possesses
broad powers with respect to the administration of a decedent’s estate, but those powers
must be exercised within the procedural framework laid out in the governing statutes.
We find nothing in the code authorizing the court to extinguish the claim of a claimant on
the mere stipulation of other persons interested in the estate. In general, the court’s
powers over the administration of an estate are exercised by authorizing or approving acts
of a personal representative who has been vested with authority to act for and on behalf
of the estate. [Probate Code citations.] With respect to claims, the personal
representative’s power begins and ends with allowing or rejecting them. [Probate Code
citation.] His rejection does not extinguish the claimant’s substantive rights and the
probate court has no power to do so on the personal representative’s mere request.
Rather the claimant is entitled to pursue the rejected claim in a civil suit against the
personal representative.” There may be situations where a court may terminate the
tolling worked by a creditor’s claim by dismissing it pursuant to its general power to
oversee court proceedings. (See Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 915 [court has
“limited, inherent discretionary power to dismiss claims with prejudice”].) But we need
not explore those situations here, where we conclude that the dismissal without prejudice
of Everett’s petition did not dismiss the claim.
Everett’s creditor’s claim was filed before a personal representative was
appointed. But the Probate Code requires only that a creditor’s claim be “filed with the
court.” (Prob. Code, § 9150, subd. (b).) The claim must be served on the personal
representative “within the later of 30 days of the filing of the claim or four months after
7
letters issue to a personal representative with general powers.” (Prob. Code, § 9150,
subd. (c).) The latter clause in this provision allows for a representative appointed after
the claim is filed, and nowhere has Holdaway contended that the service requirement was
not satisfied.
There is some superficial appeal to Holdaway’s argument that the dismissal of
Everett’s petition also terminated the tolling worked by her claim, as the court dismissed
her petition to administer the estate due to her own counsel’s failure to discharge an order
to show cause. Moreover, that petition was the first and only petition pending at the time.
However, the view that the dismissal of the sole pending petition in a probate case
terminates the tolling worked by a timely filed creditor’s claim would apply as well
where the dismissal was of someone else’s petition due to their lack of diligence. We
thus believe more is required to dismiss a creditor’s claim than the dismissal of the
petition for probate, whoever has filed it. A timely filed creditor’s claim tolls the Code of
Civil Procedure section 366.2 statute of limitations until it is acted on by the personal
representative in accord with Probate Code section 9352, or perhaps until the trial court
employs its supervisory powers to articulate a specific reason why that claim (as opposed
to any petition seeking appointment as personal representative) is dismissed.
8
In the alternative, Holdaway argues that Everett did not timely file suit following
the rejection of her claim. He acknowledges that Probate Code section 9353 allows a
period of 90 days for a creditor to bring suit after the rejection of her claim.2 Citing a
treatise (Borden et al., 2 California Decedent Estate Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2019 Update)
§ 14.78), he contends this additional 90-day limitations period does not toll or extend the
one-year limitations period provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2. On this
view, Everett had only two days to file suit after the rejection of her claim, so her
complaint, filed about two months after the rejection, is time barred.
However, as discussed in Anderson v. Anderson (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 135, the
interpretation that Holdaway advocates has not been the rule since 1987, when the
statutory scheme pertaining to limitations on actions for liabilities of a decedent was
amended.3 (Id. at pp. 138-140.) Under the current statutory scheme, the filing of a claim
tolls the underlying statute of limitations until the creditor’s claim has been rejected, and
2 Probate Code section 9353 states as follows: “(a) Regardless of whether the statute of limitations otherwise applicable to a claim will expire before or after the following times, a claim rejected in whole or in part is barred as to the part rejected unless, within the following times, the creditor commences an action on the claim or the matter is referred to a referee or to arbitration: “(1) If the claim is due at the time the notice of rejection is given, 90 days after the notice is given. “(2) If the claim is not due at the time the notice of rejection is given, 90 days after the claim becomes due. “(b) The time during which there is a vacancy in the office of the personal representative shall be excluded from the period determined under subdivision (a).”
3 Anderson analyzed Probate Code section 9353 and Code of Civil Procedure former section 353 (the substantively identical predecessor of Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2). (Anderson v. Anderson, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at pp. 138-140.) 9
after rejection, “‘the creditor has three months within which to bring an action, regardless
of the time otherwise remaining on the statute of limitations.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p.
140.) Neither Holdaway, nor the treatise he relies on, acknowledges Anderson’s holding,
let alone attempts a reasoned argument why it is distinguishable or incorrect. We will
follow Anderson, and conclude that Everett timely filed suit after the rejection of her
claim.
Holdaway more persuasively argues that, even if Everett’s creditor’s claim is not
barred by the statutes of limitations applicable to probate matters, her complaint is
uncertain in many respects, and also any action is barred by the statutes of limitations
applicable to the alleged debts. He notes that the complaint does not specify anything
about the “certain property” of Everett’s that was in the decedent’s possession when he
died, and the alleged “in-home services” and “in-home expenses” are similarly vague.
According to the complaint, the alleged loans date from as early as January 1997, “In-
Home Services” were provided between January 2012 and May 2013, and the “In-Home
Expenses” were incurred between January and October 2012. No date is associated with
her claim for “personal property.” Everett’s current complaint, therefore, is at least
arguably uncertain, and certainly fails to plead around the apparent statute of limitations
defenses to at least some of her claims. (See Doe II v. MySpace, Inc., supra, 175
Cal.App.4th at p. 566; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 337 [four-year statute of limitations for
action on a written contract; Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (c) [three-year statute of
limitations for action for action regarding personal property]; id., § 339 [two-year statute
of limitations for action on an oral contract].)
10
It is conceivable, however, that Everett could plead around these issues. There is
some indication in the record, for example, that Everett may be able to allege that she and
the decedent agreed to defer repayment of at least some of the loans well past the
originally agreed-upon dates. There is no apparent reason why Everett could not amend
her complaint to add more detail, to resolve any uncertainty. In these circumstances, we
find a reasonable possibility that amendment could cure at least some of the complaint’s
defects. It is appropriate, therefore, to allow Everett an opportunity to amend her
complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court with
directions (1) to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and
(2) to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend. Everett is awarded
costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION RAPHAEL J. We concur:
FIELDS Acting P. J.
MENETREZ J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the dismissal of a petition for probate does not terminate the tolling of the statute of limitations for a creditor's claim, which remains tolled until the claim is formally rejected by the personal representative.
Issues
Does the dismissal of a petition for probate terminate the tolling of the statute of limitations for a creditor's claim?
Does the 90-day period to file suit after rejection of a creditor's claim extend the one-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2?
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the trial court’s dismissal of Everett’s own petition to be appointed as a representative of the estate did not terminate the tolling of the statute of limitations triggered by her claim.”
“the power to reject a claim under Probate Code section 9352 is that of the personal representative appointed by the court, not the court itself.”
“the creditor has three months within which to bring an action, regardless of the time otherwise remaining on the statute of limitations.”