212 Cal. App. 4th 807
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Humpert died intestate on Oct. 29, 2010; Allen had a long-term nonmarital relationship with Humpert and claimed a promise to provide care after death.
- Allen filed a creditor’s claim against Humpert’s estate in April 2011 based on the promise to distribute; no issue of late notice in filing the claim.
- Estate rejected Allen’s claim on May 19, 2011; Allen filed suit on August 18, 2011, exactly 91 days after rejection.
- Trial court sustained a demurrer based on Probate Code § 9353’s 90-day limit from rejection; judgment of dismissal followed.
- The question presented is whether Probate Code § 9353 or Code of Civil Procedure § 366.3 governs the timeliness of a suit on a contract to distribute from an estate (Marvin claim), and whether the statutes can be reconciled.
- Court holds § 366.3 controls because it is more specific and later enacted than § 9353, despite the 90-day limit in § 9353 and the generality of § 9353.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 366.3 applies to Marvin-type claims. | Allen’s contract-to-distribute claim falls under § 366.3. | Estate argues § 366.3 does apply but contends the claim is not within its scope. | § 366.3 governs, trumping § 9353 for timely filing. |
| Whether § 9353 conflicts with § 366.3 and which controls. | § 9353 provides a 90-day deadline after rejection. | § 366.3 provides a one-year-from-death deadline, creating conflict. | § 366.3 controls; later, specific statute prevails over earlier general statute. |
| How the anomaly between probate claim-filing and § 366.3 should be resolved. | Stewart dicta should be read to place claims to distributions outside § 9000, consistent with § 366.3. | No safeguard to treat such claims as outside the probate claim framework. | Conflict resolved by treating § 366.3 as exclusive for timely filing; § 9353 does not apply to timeliness under § 366.3. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkison v. Wiederkehr, 101 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. App. 2002) (Marvin claim treated as a probate claim within § 9000; claimant must file with estate.)
- Stewart v. Seward, 148 Cal.App.4th 1513 (Cal. App. 2007) (Contract-to-distribute claims fall under § 366.3; tolling issues discussed.)
- Estate of Ziegler, 187 Cal.App.4th 1357 (Cal. App. 2010) (Claim to receive home on decedent’s death; § 366.3 application discussed.)
- McMackin v. Ehrheart, 194 Cal.App.4th 128 (Cal. App. 2011) (Marvin-type claims treated under § 366.3; timeliness analyzed.)
- Embree v. Embree, 125 Cal.App.4th 487 (Cal. App. 2004) (Marvin-type/estate-distribution claims; § 366.3 context.)
- Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, 24 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 2000) (Irreconcilable statutes; later, more specific statute prevails.)