section 366.2 one year limitations period in California

2016(Bradley v. Breen (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 798, 805-806 (Bradley) [section 366.2 applies even when "impossible" to assert claims against the estate within the one-year period]; Levine v. Levine (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1265 (Levine) [section 366.2 applies even where no proceeding to administer estate was initiated and there was no notice to creditors]; Dawes v. Rich (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 24, 36 (Dawes) ["the Legislature plainly recognized the risk that in unusual circumstances creditors would not be able to bring an action within one year of death"].) As this court noted in Dawes, any unfairn

2002Rep. (1990) p. 512.)’ ” (Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey (2000) 24 Cal.4th 301, 308 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 792 , 6 P.3d 713 ], quoting Dawes v. Rich (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 24, 34 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 ].) Rumsey involved a collection action against the husband of a woman who had died after a prolonged battle with cancer, leaving over $100,000 in medical bills.

2016(Bradley v. Breen (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 798, 805-806 (Bradley) [section 366.2 applies even when "impossible" to assert claims against the estate within the one-year period]; Levine v. Levine (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1265 (Levine) [section 366.2 applies even where no proceeding to administer estate was initiated and there was no notice to creditors]; Dawes v. Rich (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 24, 36 (Dawes) ["the Legislature plainly recognized the risk that in unusual circumstances creditors would not be able to bring an action within one year of death"].) As this court noted in Dawes, any unfairn

2013As we have pointed out above, the Legislature has expressly provided that the one-year limitations period of section 366.2 applies to causes of action "whether 20 accrued or not accrued" (§ 366.2, subd. (a)) and "shall not be tolled or extended for any reason . . . ." except in circumstances not applicable here. (§ 366.2, subd. (b), italics added; see Bradley v. Breen, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 804 .) "We . . . presume that the Legislature was well aware of the usual rules on accrual of actions . . . when it amended section 366.2" and thus it applies to bar plaintiffs' causes of action again

2022Trustees and administrators, not knowing whether it was safe to finalize distribution, could withhold assets as a reserve against the assertion of unknown claims.” (Levine v. Levine (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1263 .) The plain language of section 366.2 provides for a one-year statute of limitations when the claim is based upon the liability of the deceased person. (§ 366.2, subd. (a).) In particular, the statute provides, “If a person against whom an action may be brought on a liability of the person . . . dies . . . an action may be commenced within one year 12 after the date of death.” (§

2016(Bradley v. Breen (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 798, 805-806 (Bradley) [section 366.2 applies even when "impossible" to assert claims against the estate within the one-year period]; Levine v. Levine (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1265 (Levine) [section 366.2 applies even where no proceeding to administer estate was initiated and there was no notice to creditors]; Dawes v. Rich (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 24, 36 (Dawes) ["the Legislature plainly recognized the risk that in unusual circumstances creditors would not be able to bring an action within one year of death"].) As this court noted in Dawes, any unfairn

2022POLICY In Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey (2000) 24 Cal.4th 301 , the Supreme Court explained, “The overall intent of the Legislature in enacting Code of Civil Procedure former section 353 [(now section 366.2)] was to protect decedents’ estates from creditors’ stale claims. [Citations.] ‘[T]he drafters of former . . . section 353 and current . . . section 366.2 believed the limitation period the statute imposes serves “the strong public policies of expeditious estate administration and security of title for distributees, and is consistent with the concept that a creditor has some oblig

2002Rep. (1990) p. 512.)’ ” (Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey (2000) 24 Cal.4th 301, 308 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 792 , 6 P.3d 713 ], quoting Dawes v. Rich (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 24, 34 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 ].) Rumsey involved a collection action against the husband of a woman who had died after a prolonged battle with cancer, leaving over $100,000 in medical bills.

2016(Estate of Giraldin (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1058, 1076 (Giraldin).) Moreover, the strong public policy of expeditious estate administration in section 366.2 requires its limitations period to be applied even in unusual cases where the one-year period lapses before estate administration begins.

2016(See Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 284 [collecting cases permitting an action for conversion of money that has been misappropriated, commingled, or misapplied from specific funds held for the benefit of others].) Rose's personal assets might have been reached for such liability.6 Therefore, the one-year limitations period in section 366.2(a) applies to Richard's petition under Probate Code section 850 because when Rose died, she was "a person against whom an action may be brought on a liability of the person, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and wh

1999(See Battuello v. Battuello (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 842, 847-848 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 548 ].) The Legislature has also enacted specific exceptions to section 366.2.

1999(See Battuello v. Battuello (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 842, 847-848 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 548 ].) The Legislature has also enacted specific exceptions to section 366.2.

1999Code, §§ 9352, 9353, 9256; Anderson v. Anderson (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 135, 138 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 642 ]; see also Ross & Moore, Cal. Practice Guide: Probate (The Rutter Group 1998) ffl[ 8:19.3, 8:99.1.) (1) Moreover, when the decedent’s representative has induced a claimant not to file a suit within the limitations period of section 366.2, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied to toll the statute.

1999Code, §§ 9352, 9353, 9256; Anderson v. Anderson (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 135, 138 [ 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 642 ]; see also Ross & Moore, Cal. Practice Guide: Probate (The Rutter Group 1998) ffl[ 8:19.3, 8:99.1.) (1) Moreover, when the decedent’s representative has induced a claimant not to file a suit within the limitations period of section 366.2, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied to toll the statute.