You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Altschul v. Schweitzer

Citations: 182 Cal. App. 3d 330; 227 Cal. Rptr. 11; 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1709Docket: D003426

Court: California Court of Appeal; May 19, 1986; California; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a case concerning the dismissal of a malpractice action, the appellate court reversed a lower court's decision sustaining a demurrer against Ora Altschul. Altschul filed a malpractice lawsuit against the executor of Gary S. Schweitzer's estate after the court denied a petition to compromise a $29,000 account receivable owed by Altschul for legal services. The executor argued that Altschul failed to present her claim within the four-month period required by California Probate Code section 700. Despite acknowledging this procedural default, the appellate court found that Altschul's claim was effectively presented through a settlement agreement, which was negotiated within the statutory period. The appellate court distinguished this case from Nathanson v. Superior Court, noting the absence of a contingency on Altschul's claim and the executor's acknowledgment of the claim. The judgment was reversed, with instructions to overrule the demurrer and allow the case to proceed, as the settlement agreement constituted adequate notification under the statute. Each party was directed to bear their own appeal costs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Demurrer and Late Claims

Application: The trial court initially upheld the executor's demurrer due to the late filing of Altschul's claim, but the appellate court reversed, emphasizing the executor's prior knowledge and the negotiated settlement.

Reasoning: The court, while recognizing the inequity in denying Altschul the right to pursue her claim given the executor's prior knowledge, felt constrained by precedent set in Nathanson v. Superior Court.

Effect of Settlement Agreements on Malpractice Claims

Application: The settlement agreement between Altschul and the executor's attorney was intended to resolve any claims of malpractice, thus negating the necessity for further formal notice.

Reasoning: The agreement, drafted by Altschul's counsel following verbal communication regarding the claim amount, served as sufficient written notice to comply with Probate Code section 700.

Filing Claims Against Decedent's Estate under Probate Code Section 700

Application: The appellate court found that Altschul's claim was properly presented to the executor within the statutory period, as the settlement agreement constituted sufficient written notice.

Reasoning: Clark’s letter to Moss, sent within the statutory period, explicitly referenced the settlement of Altschul's claim.