Plaintiff promisee sought review from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered a nonsuit to his action against defendants, estate administrator and heirs, based upon an alleged contract of the decedent to leave certain property by will to plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that he was entitled to the promised bequest by specific performance or by an action at law on a claim against the estate.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains how to write a Formal Demand Letter
Overview
Plaintiff promisee brought an action against defendants, estate administrator and heirs, based upon an alleged contract of decedent to leave certain property to plaintiff by will. Plaintiff had contended that the mother of decedent promised plaintiff that she would bequeath a sum certain to him by will for his services rendered to decedent. After the mother’s death, decedent told plaintiff he had no money to pay the bequest from the will, but that he would pay him the amount out of proceeds from a note. Said sum was never paid and plaintiff brought suit. The trial court entered a nonsuit to the complaint and plaintiff sought review. The court held that specific performance was not available because plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. The court further held that on the action at law for a claim against the estate, the statute of frauds barred the claim because there was no fraud which would permit estoppel of the statute of frauds defense. However, the court noted that under general pleading rules, plaintiff had sufficiently pled facts which entitled him to recover the sum as promised. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of nonsuit.
Outcome
The court reversed the nonsuit against plaintiff promisee in his action against defendants, administrator and heirs, seeking recovery of a sum certain promised by decedent to be left in his will. The court held that specific performance was not applicable because plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law, and that the statute of frauds barred a claim at law. However, the court held that plaintiff had sufficiently pled facts entitling him to relief.
