Skip to content
  • Latest
2024 Success Stories
  • Call Today: 310.444.9060
  • Probate Services
    ▼
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    ▼
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    ▼
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    ▼
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation
  • Probate Services
    • Trust & Will Disputes
    • Fiduciary Misconduct
    • Property Disputes
    • Elder Financial Abuse
    • Trust & Estate Administration
    • Conservatorship
    • Guardianship
    • Probate Appeals
  • Who We Help
    • Executor / Administrator
    • Trustee
    • Beneficiary
    • Spouse
    • Power of Attorney
    • Conservator
    • Guardian
    • Creditor
  • Our Firm
    • Attorneys
    • Staff
    • Careers
    • 10th Anniversary
  • Learn
    • Blog
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletters
    • Testimonials
    • Whitepapers
  • Request a Consultation

Home » Blog » A Rare But Noteworthy Exception to the General Rule That All Claims Against a Decedent Must be Brought Within One Year of Death

Last Updated: April 10, 2024

A Rare But Noteworthy Exception to the General Rule That All Claims Against a Decedent Must be Brought Within One Year of Death

Search

In almost every instance, there exists a one-year statute of limitations on any and all claims brought against a decedent, which begins to run on the date of the decedent’s death.[1] Yeh v. Li-Cheng Tai[2], however, carves out a rare exception to this general rule by allowing a decedent’s surviving spouse additional time to bring a claim against the deceased spouse for breach of fiduciary duty, without running afoul of this one-year limitations period.

In that case, Plaintiff Francine S. Yeh (“Plaintiff”) and her husband bought a condominium together as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. The down payment, loan, and all expenses for the home were paid using their joint funds. But in order to obtain a more favorable loan on the home, Plaintiff (who had poor credit) subsequently transferred her interest in the property to her husband (who had comparably better credit). Plaintiff’s husband promised that he would later add Plaintiff’s name back to title to the property, and three days before his passing, he assured Plaintiff that the real property was hers and that she would be able to keep or dispose of it after his death.

Unfortunately for Plaintiff, several years prior to her husband’s death, but during the course of their marriage, her husband had created a trust without her knowledge. In establishing his trust, her husband executed a trust transfer deed which transferred title for the real property to his trust, the beneficiaries of which were his children from a prior marriage. The terms of this trust would therefore control the disposition of this property at his death.

Based on the above facts, approximately 18 months after her husband’s death, Plaintiff filed an action for breach of fiduciary duty and alleged that her husband had committed fraud in violation of Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff sought damages against her husband’s children (i.e., the beneficiaries under her husband’s trust) under Family Code section 1101 (“Section 1101”), a subsection of which allows for damages in the amount of 100% of the asset(s) transferred in breach of the fiduciary duty.[3]

The husband’s children (collectively “Defendants”) relied on California Code of Civil Procedure sections 366.2 and 366.3 (“Sections 366.2 and 366.3”), which provide a one-year statute of limitations for claims based on the liability of a decedent, and on this basis, Defendants filed a demurrer claiming that the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s Section 1101 claim had already passed. The trial court agreed, and sustained Defendant’s demurrer.

The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the trial court’s finding, and ruled that Plaintiff’s claims were not time barred. In so ruling, the Appellate Court relied on the plain language of Section 1101, as well as on common rules of statutory construction.

Indeed, Section 1101 (which creates a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by one spouse against the other for impairment of the claimant spouse’s interest in community property), contains its own statute of limitations for breaches of fiduciary duty occurring within the context of a marriage. And moreover, in determining the limitations period, Section 1101 further distinguishes between claims made during a marriage with those claims made at dissolution or death.

Pursuant to Section 1101, the statute of limitations is normally three years from the date when the claimant spouse learns of the transaction which they seek to remedy. However, as reflected in Section 1101(d), the three-year statute of limitations does not apply where the claim is brought by a spouse upon the death of the offending spouse or in conjunction with a legal action for dissolution, separation, or nullification of the marriage.[4] Instead, claims for breach of fiduciary duty brought against a decedent under Section 1101 are limited only by the equitable doctrine of laches[5] and not by any set statute of limitations.

These provisions, however, are in direct conflict with Sections 366.2 and 366.3, which both provide that claims against a decedent must be brought within one year of the decedent’s date of death.[6]

In resolving this conflict, the Court favored the specific nature of Section 1101(d) over the general statute of limitations included in Sections 366.2 and 366.3: “When two statutes of limitations are applicable, the specific takes precedence over the general.”[7] Here, Section 1101 is more specific than Code of Civil Procedure sections 366.2 and 366.3, as Section 1101 governs the specific limitations period for breach of fiduciary duty claims between spouses, whereas Sections 366.2 and 366.3 generally govern claims which could have been brought against a decedent.

In addition to this test of general versus specific application, the Court of Appeal also relied on the principle that in a battle between conflicting statutes, the later-enacted statute should supersede the earlier one. The later-enacted statute is given deference on the basis that the Legislature was aware of the existence of the earlier-enacted statute when it enacted the newer statute and presumably enacted the new statute in order to provide additional guidance. On this point, Section 366.2 has been enacted in California laws in some format since 1850, whereas the substance of Section 1101 was not enacted until 1986.

Finally, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s claim should be time-barred by Probate Code section 16061.8, on the basis that the claim constituted a trust contest under Probate Code section 21310(b)(5), and was therefore subject to that statute’s 120-day limitations period. However, the Court opined that in order for an action to constitute a trust contest such that it would trigger the application of this 120-day limitations period, it must have been brought by a beneficiary of the trust, and here, Plaintiff was not (and never had been) a beneficiary of decedent’s trust. On that basis, the Court held that section 16061.8 does not apply. Plaintiff was therefore awarded her costs on appeal, and the case was remanded to allow Plaintiff to present her claim under Section 1101, as Defendants had not raised laches as a defense.

This is an important case for any surviving spouse who may have a claim against their predeceased spouse for breach of fiduciary duty. While the surviving spouse cannot unreasonably delay in bringing their claim (which might give rise to the equitable defense of latches), they may be able to bring their claim after the traditional one-year statute of limitations has passed.

____________________________________________________________

[1] See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 366.2, and 366.3.

[2] Yeh v. Li-Cheng Tai (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 953.

[3] Damages for a breach of a spouse’s fiduciary duty typically include fifty percent of any asset which was not disclosed or which was transferred in breach of the fiduciary duty, plus attorney’s fees and costs. An award of punitive damages, however, may result in one hundred percent of any undisclosed or transferred asset being granted to the injured spouse. See Fam. Code § 1101(g-h).

[4] The rationale for this distinction, as articulated by the statute’s author is “to apply absolutely no pressure on spouses to undertake such litigation during the ongoing marriage.” Yeh, 18 Cal.App.5th at 961.

[5] Laches is the failure to assert a right without unreasonable delay. See, e.g., Getty v. Getty (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1159.

[6] Section 366.2 applies to claims that could have been brought against the decedent had the decedent lived. Pursuant to that provision, such claims must be brought within one year of the decedent’s death. Section 366.3 provides for a one-year statute of limitations for claims “arising from a promise or agreement with a decedent to a distribution from an estate or trust or under another instrument . . . .” In Yeh, the Court of Appeals found that the promise alleged by Plaintiff was not a testamentary promise concerning distribution from an estate or trust but rather was alleged to be a promise made by the husband while he was alive that his wife would be added to the title to the property. The Court made the distinction that although the deed may be considered “another instrument”, it could not be considered an instrument of distribution, as intended by Section 366.3.

[7] Yeh, 18 Cal.App.5th at 963.

Share Post
PrevPreviousKeystone Attorneys Named as Top Woman Attorneys of Southern California
Read NextThe Anti-SLAPP Statute is Now a Powerful Tool to Discourage Enforcement of No-Contest ClausesNext

Related Articles

KLG-VERLAN-POST
Super Lawyers Selects Partner Verlan Kwan as One of the Top 50 Women Lawyers
Read More
KLG-SHAWN-POST
Managing Partner Shawn Kerendian Recognized as a Leader of Influence: Thriving in Their 40’s
Read More
shutterstock_2304763731-cropped
2024 Success Stories
Read More
Signing contract and buying agricultural machines and farming equipment
Restoring Ownership of Home — and Justice — for Financially Exploited Elder
Read More
Close up of hands using phone
Shutting Down a Scandal: Protecting a Son’s Legacy From Influencer’s Social Media Attacks 
Read More
talking with trustee
Keeping the Peace in Decades-Old Family Feud
Read More
senior caucasian man open mail letter sign contract document at home
Securing Multimillion-Dollar Settlement for Nephew of Hollywood Icon Without Litigation
Read More
Angry neighbours having argument near fence outdoors
Using a Summary Judgment Motion to Shut Down a Baseless Trust Dispute
Read More
Contract, signature and attorney consulting a client in his office with legal paperwork or agreement
Safeguarding Daughter’s Inheritance From Trust Mismanagement
Read More
Subscribe to The Keystone Quarterly  

Stay up to date with the latest news in the exciting world of probate law through our quarterly newsletter, The Keystone Quarterly. 

Each issue provides insight into the latest probate developments, delves into some of Keystone’s more interesting cases, and gives important updates about our firm. The Keystone Quarterly is a must-read for attorneys and clients alike.

Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Contact
  • 11300 West Olympic Blvd.
    Suite 910
    Los Angeles, CA 90064
  • 310.444.9060
Contact Us
Linkedin Instagram Facebook
Company
  • Our Firm
  • Attorneys
  • Staff
  • Careers
  • 10th Anniversary
Probate Services
  • Trust & Will Disputes
  • Fiduciary Misconduct
  • Property Disputes
  • Elder Financial Abuse
  • Trust & Estate Administration
  • Conservatorship
  • Guardianship
  • Probate Appeals
Who We Help
  • Executor / Administrator
  • Trustee
  • Beneficiary
  • Spouse
  • Power of Attorney
  • Conservator
  • Guardian
  • Creditor
Learn
  • Blog
  • Case Studies
  • Newsletters
  • Testimonials
  • Whitepapers
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap

©2025 Keystone Law Group, P.C. All rights reserved.

This website is for general information purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Connection to this website, and communication to this law firm via email or other electronic transmission do not constitute an attorney-client relationship with Keystone Law Group, P.C. unless a separate written agreement is signed by you and Keystone Law Group, P.C. as to the nature of any relationship and the amount to be charged for the intended legal services.

Manage Cookie Consent
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}