Appellant widow challenged a decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that was in favor of respondents, administrator and heirs of testator's estate, in appellant's action for revocation of probate and for determination of entitlement of distribution of estate.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains member managed vs manager managed

Overview

Testator executed a will that omitted appellant widow. Appellant petitioned for revocation of probate, and for a determination of entitlement to distribution of estate, based on her contention that she was entitled to one-half of testator's estate as surviving spouse and as a partner of their alleged "Marvin partnership." The trial court rendered judgment for respondents, administrator and heirs of testator's estate, on the will contest issue, and also held that the statute of limitations was a bar to enforcement of the Marvin partnership. Appellant sought review. The court affirmed. The court held that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in denying appellant a jury trial on affirmative defenses. The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that enforcement of the implied "Marvin agreement" was barred by the statute of limitations.

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of respondents, administrator and heirs of estate, in appellant widow's probate action. The court held that enforcement of a "Marvin agreement" was barred by the statute of limitations; there was no error denying a jury trial on affirmative defenses.