Confidential
Settlement – $300,000Facts
The plaintiff met the decedent in 1988. The two lived in the same apartment complex at the time and began a
dating relationship.
Early on in the relationship, the two began cohabiting as husband and wife, first, at the plaintiff's apartment
and subsequently at a residence purchased by the decedent.
Prior to the cohabitation with the plaintiff, the decedent had promised to take care of the plaintiff during their
relationship as well as after his death.
The plaintiff and the decedent also entered into a property agreement whereby the defendant would arrange for
the plaintiff to receive all of his real and personal property in exchange for her taking on the role of his wife and
for her taking care of him during his lifetime.
Pursuant to this verbal agreement, the plaintiff fulfilled her obligations under the agreement and the decedent
did in fact support the plaintiff, and the couple did live together as man and wife.
The plaintiff's duties of taking care of the decedent increased over time during the 13-year relationship as the
decedent suffered from numerous health problems and he underwent multiple surgeries.
At the outset of the relationship, the plaintiff was working outside of the home.
After 1995, pursuant to the agreement, and at the insistence of the decedent, the plaintiff did not return to work
outside of the home, relying upon the decedent's promises to provide support and to provide the plaintiff with
all of his personal and real property.
The property and support agreements were made known to the couple's friends and relatives, many of whom
confirmed their knowledge at deposition.
In an apparent attempt to effectuate his obligations under the contracts for support and property, the decedent
filled out an estate plan on pre-printed forms that he obtained from an office supply store. The decedent's trust,
itself, did not identify a beneficiary.
The estate planning documents were forwarded to the decedent's cousin with a transmittal letter which did not
identify the beneficiary of the bulk of the Estate, although the decedent's cousin testified at deposition that the
decedent told him numerous times over the years that the plaintiff was his sole beneficiary and that his
daughter was to receive only $1,000.
The plaintiff filed a creditor's claim on May 29, 2001 in Probate asserting a claim to the entire Estate.
The claim was rejected by the personal representative of the estate on July 9, 2001.
Settlement Discussions
A mediation was held on March 14, 2002 with Jan Stone as mediator and the case was settled at $300,000.
Result
The summary judgment was issued in favor of the defendants on the grounds that the defendants neither breached any of the warranties contained in the purchase and sale agreement between the parties nor committed any misrepresentations regarding the tax- defaulted status of the property in question.
Other Information
North American Title Insurance Co. also prevailed in its summary judgment motion against the plaintiff which was heard on the same date. A summary judgment brought by the sellers and by North American (on behalf of the buyer) in a related action in the San Bernardino Court to rescind the tax sale due to the county's failure to provide due process was granted on May 14, 2002.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390