Appellant promisee sought review of an order from the San Francisco County Superior Court (California), which granted summary judgment to respondents, administrator and heirs of testator’s estate, in an action brought by appellant to enforce oral support and property agreements made between appellant and testator as cohabitants prior to testator’s death.
Table of Contents
Overview
Cohabitants, appellant promisee and testator, entered into an oral support agreement and an oral property agreement. Following testator’s death, appellant brought an action against respondents, administrator and heirs of testator’s estate, to enforce the agreements. Summary judgment was granted to respondents, and appellant sought review. The court reversed and found that testator’s promises of care had created a triable issue of fact as to the support agreement’s existence and that conflicting interpretations of those promises had also created a triable issue of fact. Moreover, the court found that the agreement was not uncertain and that the writing requirement of Cal. Prob. Code § 150(a) was inapplicable because the oral agreement was not a contract to make a will or a contract to make a devise. As for the oral property agreement, the court found triable issues of fact regarding the agreement’s existence and equitable estoppel’s preclusion of the statute of frauds. Finally, the court found appellant’s causes of action for declaratory relief, specific performance, constructive trust, and injunctive relief were viable actions for the enforcement of the cohabitation agreements.
Outcome
The court reversed an order granting respondents, administrator and heirs of testator’s estate, summary judgment in an action brought by appellant promisee to enforce oral support and property agreements. The agreements’ existence and equitable estoppel’s applicability to the property agreement were triable issues of fact, and actions for declaratory relief, specific performance, constructive trust, and injunctive relief were found viable.
Procedural Posture
During trial plaintiff retained professional legal services from a class action lawyer California to present expert testimony. Appellants, a wellfield operator and its parent company, sought review of a summary judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which ruled that exculpatory and limitation of liability provisions in a daywork drilling agreement precluded the recovery of damages against respondent daywork drilling contractor on a cross-complaint for economic loss and physical harm to equipment and facilities caused by an accident.
Overview
The operator hired the contractor to drill an oil well. The contract provided that the operator was to be solely responsible and assume liability for all consequences of operations by both parties. An accident resulted in personal injury and property damage. After the contractor brought suit to recover amounts due to it under two contracts, the operator and its parent company filed a cross-complaint alleging negligence in the drilling of the well. The court noted that an appeal from the summary judgment on the cross-complaint was proper because the issues involved in the appeal were inextricably intertwined with the unresolved claims. The agreement clearly limited the operator’s ability to recover for injury resulting from accidents, even those caused by the negligence of the contractor. There was no improper attempt to exempt a contracting party from responsibility for violation of law within the meaning of Civ. Code, § 1668, because the agreement did not adversely affect the public interest. The agreement did not implicate the safety requirements of Pub. Resources Code, § 3219, because a daywork contractor was not an operator as defined in Pub. Resources Code, § 3009.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
