This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Probate and Trusts
Partnership
Oral Agreement

Estate of Geraldine Lousen

Published: Mar. 30, 2002 | Result Date: Mar. 1, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: EP005306 Bench Decision –  $104,000

Judge

Charles W. Stoll

Court

L.A. Superior Glendale


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Valerie K. Byer


Defendant

John A. Dundas


Facts

The decedent Geraldine Lousen and the respondent Horst Ritter had an oral agreement for the purpose of owning
and racing thoroughbred horses. They shared expenses, purses and sales proceeds in accordance with their
percentage interests. Upon her death, the decedent owned a partial interest in four horses with the respondent.
The petitioner filed a petition to determine title and to transfer the decedentÆs interest to the estate.
The respondent claimed that he and the decedent had orally agreed that upon the
decedentÆs death, her interest in all the horses owned by them, under their oral partnership
agreement, would vest in the respondent. In the alternative, the respondent claimed he was
entitled to equitable relief in the form of specific performance due to his having relied to his
detriment on the promise to receive the horses on her death. The respondent testified that he
had devoted many hours to managing the horses without compensation.

Other Information

The court found that an agreement to make a disposition in a will must be in writing and no writing existed in this case. While the court is permitted to apply equitable principles to overcome the writing requirement, the respondent did not meet his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, much less by clear and convincing evidence. Judgment was for the petitioner for the decedentÆs interest in two horses in which she had an interest that were sold following her death, and a one-half interest in the two remaining horses.


#90603

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390