Court Opinion

ID: 9794796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:11:46.269564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:39.025799
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J.,
Dissenting.—It is the general rule, applicable in this case, that in order properly to commence an action there must first be a party then in existence capable of being sued and against whom a judgment may be entered. Secondly, facts must exist at that time which when alleged would be sufficient to support a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Here neither condition existed.
Section 714 of the Probate Code requires that the holder of a claim must “bring suit” in the proper court against the executor or administrator, within three months after the date of service of notice of rejection of claim or the “claim shall be *251forever barred.” Under section 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure an action is “commenced” when a complaint is filed. However, this section must be construed with section 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that “Civil actions, without exception, can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this title, after the cause of action shall have accrued, unless where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute.” An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, (Code Civ. Proc., § 22.) A cause of action cannot exist in vacuo. In order that a civil action be prosecuted there must be an existing person against whom the processes of law can operate. (Tanner v. Estate of Best, 40 Cal.App.2d 442, 445 [104 P.2d 1084]; Bancroft’s Code Pleading [1926], vol. 1, p. 169.) A complaint is based upon the theory that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment at the time of its filing. (Bank of Italy, etc. Assn. v. Bentley, 217 Cal. 644, 658 [20 P.2d 940].)
When this complaint was filed there was no one in existence against whom a judgment could be entered on the plaintiffs’ claim. The necessary party defendant was the personal representative of the decedent’s estate acting in her official capacity. (Cf. Prob. Code, §§ 714, 573, 577; Mesmer v. Jenkins, 61 Cal. 151, 153.) There was no personal representative appointed at that time and therefore there was no one against whom the plaintiffs could have proceeded.
A complaint naming a nonexistent defendant is fatally defective. Suing the nonexistent personal representative under a fictitious name could not breathe life into the complaint. The fictitious name statute applies where the plaintiff is ignorant of the true name or identity of a real person or a real entity against whom he has a cause of action. In such case the plaintiff may designate the defendant “by any name” and when the true name is discovered he may amend his pleading accordingly. (Code Civ. Proc. §474.) The fictitious name statute was designed to stop the running of the statute of limitations on a cause of action where the identity of a real defendant is unknown at the time the complaint is filed. Where the complaint states a cause of action against such a real but unknown person the complaint may be amended even after the statute of limitations would have otherwise run. The action will then be deemed to have been commenced against *252the defendant as of the time the original complaint was filed. (Hoffman v. Keeton, 132 Cal. 195 [64 P. 264]; Farris v. Merritt, 63 Cal. 118.)
The plaintiffs were not faced with any problem of haying the general statute of limitations run on their claim. Section 353 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enacted in 1872, provides: “. . . If a person against whom an action may be brought dies before the expiration of the time limited for the commencement thereof, and the cause of action survive, an action may be commenced against his representatives, after the expiration of that time, and within one year after the issuing of letters testamentary or of administration.” The fact that there was no executor or administrator against whom they could proceed could not prejudice the plaintiffs insofar as the statute of limitations was concerned. It was tolled regardless of the time intervening between the death of the decedent and the appointment of his personal representative. (Hibernia S. & L. Society v. Boland, 145 Cal. 626 [79 P. 365]; Danglada v. De La Guerra, 10 Cal. 386, 387.) If the delay in the commencement of probate proceedings caused them any hardship the plaintiffs were not without a remedy. They could have had an administrator appointed under the provisions of section 422 of the Probate Code and presented their claim to him.
Once an administratrix was appointed, however, the plaintiffs were required to be vigilant in presenting their claim. This they did. The rejection of their claim was sufficient to put them on notice that under the law prompt action was required to enable them to pursue their right of action against the estate. This they did not do. They did not sue within due time after the rejection of their claim.
Section 714 of the Probate Code constitutes a special or short-term statute of limitations. (Cowgill v. Dinwiddie, 98 Cal. 481, 485 [33 P. 439]; Benedict v. Haggin, 2 Cal. 385, 387; Estate of Wilcox, 68 Cal.App.2d 780, 785 [158 P.2d 32]; Thayer v. Fish, 49 Cal.App.2d 618, 620 [122 P.2d 358]; San Francisco Bank v. St. Clair, 47 Cal.App.2d 194, 201 [117 P.2d 703]; Laukkare v. Abramson, 9 Cal.App.2d 447, 449 [50 P.2d 478].) It does not begin to run until after notice of rejection of the claim, or, at the claimant’s election, until 10 days after presentation of claim without any action having been taken thereon. (Prob. Code, § 712.) Here the claim of the plaintiffs was rejected on August 20, 1954, and the short-term statute of limitations commenced to operate on that date. Statutes *253of limitation are recognized as being “vital to the welfare of society . . . they promote repose by giving security and stability to human affairs . . . they stimulate to activity and punish negligence.” (Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135, 139 [25 L.Ed 807], quoted with approval in Neff v. New York Life Ins., 30 Cal.2d 165, 175 [180 P.2d 900, 171 A.L.R. 563].) Generally it is held that as between parties acting in their own right the plea of the statute of limitations is a personal privilege. It may be waived and if1 not asserted, is deemed to have been waived. However, the administratrix, as here, is held to act not in her own right but as trustee for the benefit of creditors and heirs. She possesses no personal privilege to waive the defense of the statute. (Fontana Land Co. v. Laughlin, 199 Cal. 625, 636-637 [250 P. 669, 48 A.L.R. 1308]; Reay v. Heazelton, 128 Cal. 335, 338-339 [60 P. 977]; Boyce v. Fisk, 110 Cal. 107, 117 [42 P. 473]; Hurlimann v. Bank of America, 141 Cal.App.2d 801, 806 [297 P.2d 682]; Bryson v. Hill, 107 Cal.App. 158, 160 [290 P. 52].) She could not have waived the defense that section 714 of the Probate Code barred this action. That section is declarative of a public policy of the state for the efficient administration and the prompt settlement of estates for the benefit of heirs and beneficiaries as well as creditors. Its provisions are comparable to the three months’ limitation provided in section 580a of the Code of Civil Procedure for the commencement of an action for a deficiency judgment. The provisions of that section have been held to be part of a legislative plan to lighten the burdens of trust-debtors and they may not be waived as they are not mere personal rights for the benefit of individuals. (Hatch v. Security-First Nat. Bank, 19 Cal.2d 254, 259 [120 P.2d 869]; California Bank v. Stimson, 89 Cal.App.2d 552, 554-555 [201 P.2d 39].) The time provided in the section is reasonable. The Legislature had the power to prescribe the term of the limitation. The language it employed leaves no room for doubt. If the procedure prescribed is not followed the claim is “forever barred.”
In order to state a cause of action against the estate a necessary prerequisite was that the claim be first presented to the personal representative of the estate and that it be rejected, or be deemed rejected by operation of law (Prob. Code, § 712). Prior to such rejection no cause of action could be stated. It is the general rule that where an original complaint upon a rejected claim fails because the action is prematurely brought, a supplemental complaint has no place as a pleading to sustain *254the action. (Morse v. Steele, 132 Cal. 456, 458 [64 P. 690]; Walton v. County of Kern, 39 Cal.App.2d 32, 34 [102 P.2d 531].) There are no circumstances shown here which would justify a modification of this rule on the grounds of estoppel (cf. Grant v. Sun Indemnity Co., 11 Cal.2d 438, 440 [80 P.2d 996]) or waiver (cf. Bollinger v. National Fire Ins. Co., 25 Cal.2d 399, 406 [154 P.2d 399]) or other recognized grounds. The cases of Gregory v. Clabrough’s Executors, 129 Cal. 475, 479 [62 P. 72], Preston v. Knapp, 85 Cal. 559, 561 [24 P. 811], and Security First Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 17 Cal.App.2d 641, 642-643 [62 P.2d 798], cited in the majority opinion, are distinguishable on their facts.
The majority opinion states that “it appears from the very pleading which defendant relies on to show the facts which she invokes, that before she raised the plea she had had, and had rejected, every benefit the statute gave her.” But the benefits the statute gave the administratrix were not merely to have the opportunity of approving or rejecting a claim before suit may be brought thereon. Other benefits and duties were specifically provided for. The statute gave the admin-istratrix a right to consider that at the expiration of three months from the service of notice of rejection of the plaintiffs' claim no action could thereafter be brought. Whether the substantial rights of the estate were affected is not the issue. The legislative concern for prompt settlement of estates is clearly expressed. The rights given to creditors and claimants must be pursued as provided by law. It cannot be said that the administratrix was dilatory in presenting her objections or that she had an opportunity to object at a time when the plaintiffs could have amended their complaint or when they could have dismissed and filed anew. She had no right or privilege to waive her objections. Her objections were in the nature of a plea in bar and not in abatement. The trial court properly sustained her demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend.
For the foregoing reasons and for the additional reasons stated in the majority opinion of the District Court of Appeal of the Second District, Division Two (Cal.App.), 302 P.2d 910, I would affirm the judgment.
McComb, J., concurred.