Gaul v. Loeb & Loeb
Filed 8/22/06 Gaul v. Loeb & Loeb CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| DOREEN GAUL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LOEB & LOEB et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B182810 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC083297) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia Collins, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Robert S. Gerstein and Christopher Rolin for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, Robert E. Mangels, and Susan Allison for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiffs Doreen Gaul, Laura Gaul, and Gregory Gaul (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for professional negligence against their father's attorneys, defendants Loeb & Loeb and Andrew Garb (defendants), alleging that defendants negligently prepared an estate plan for their father that failed to carry out his intent to leave them half his property upon his death and his remaining property after his wife's death. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that plaintiffs' action was barred by the statute of limitations as a matter of law. Plaintiffs appeal, contending that they can amend to plead facts demonstrating that their claims are not time-barred. We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs' complaint, filed October 27, 2004, alleges as follows.[1] Decedent Raymond Gaul (decedent) died on November 14, 2000. He was survived by his wife, Evelyn Gaul (wife), and plaintiffs, his three adult children by a prior marriage.
Prior to his death, decedent retained defendants to prepare testamentary documents that would leave half his estate to the plaintiffs, and the other half to his wife in trust, and then to plaintiffs after his wife's death. Defendants prepared a will for decedent, which he executed on June 6, 1989. As decedent intended, the will provided that half of his estate would be distributed to his wife in trust, and the other half would be distributed outright to his children in equal shares. However, the will did not provide that upon his wife's death the property held in trust for her would pass to plaintiffs. Moreover, defendants failed to advise decedent that his will would be ineffective to pass property to the plaintiffs unless he transferred the property out of joint tenancy with his wife. As a result, after decedent's death plaintiffs received nothing under his will because his entire estate passed to his wife through joint tenancy transfers.
Plaintiffs allege that they were damaged on or about March 17, 2001, and that their complaint was timely filed on October 27, 2004, pursuant to a tolling agreement that extended the statute of limitations through October 30, 2004.
Defendants demurred. First, they asserted that the complaint failed to state a claim for professional negligence because as a matter of law they owed no duty to plaintiffs as purported third-party beneficiaries under decedent's will. Second, they asserted that plaintiffs' claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6. Specifically, they contended that the parties entered two separate sets of tolling agreements: (1) a March 14, 2002 agreement that, as extended, expired on May 18, 2003; and (2) a June 30, 2004 agreement that tolled the statute of limitations as to then-viable claims but did â€
