18-CIV-04944 CATHERINE L. VANDERLAAN VS. JOSEPH S. MAGNELLO

CATHERINE L. VANDERLAAN JOSEPH S. MAGNELLO
SARAH ANNE THOMPSON BETSY JOHNSEN

DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT JOSEPH S. MAGNELLO TO THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF TENTATIVE RULING:

A. First and Second Causes of Action (oral contract; implied contract)

Demurrers to the first and second causes of action (oral contract; implied contract) are overruled.

The statute of frauds applies to any agreement that “is not to be” performed within one year from its making. (Civ. Code sect. 1624, subd. (a)(1).) However, if it is merely unlikely that it will be so performed, or the period of performance is indefinite, the statute does not apply. (Blaustein v. Burton (1970) 9 Cal. App. 3d 161, 185.) The statute of frauds applies only to contracts that “cannot” be performed within one year. (Hollywood Motion Picture Equip. Co. v. Furer (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 184, 187.) Even though a promise may not by its terms be performed within a year, yet it is not inhibited by the statute if there is a possibility that it may be.” (Id.) “If it is merely unlikely that it will be so performed, or the period of performance is indefinite, the statute does not apply. (1 WITKIN, SUMMARY OF CALIF. LAW (11th ed. 2018) Contracts sect. 366.) The First Cause of Action (Oral Contract) alleges that the parties agreed to “(a) live together; (b) support each other; (c) share jointly in existing or newly acquired assets; (d) share Joe’s retirement savings upon their retirement; (e) share equally the income and assets produced by their labor; (t) share expenses; and (g) to account to each other therefore.” (Complaint ¶ 15.) Although the parties likely anticipated a long life together, the agreement could be fully performed within one year from the time the parties entered into it in 2010. The Second Cause of Action alleges the same obligations and, for the same reasons, does not fall within the statute of frauds. The Court does not entertain Defendant’s statute of limitations argument, which was improperly raised only in the Reply papers.

B. Third Cause of Action (Promissory Estoppel)

Demurrer to the third cause of action is overruled. The question of whether reliance was reasonable is generally a question of fact. However, the question can be determined as a matter of law “if reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion based on the facts.” (All. Mortg. Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239.) The allegations in the complaint do not compel a sole reasonable conclusion that Plaintiff’s reliance was unreasonable. The question is one for trial.

C. Fourth Cause of Action (Quantum Meruit)

Demurrer to the fourth cause of action is overruled. The ground for demurrer is that the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff performed work with the expectation of compensation. (Moving P&A at 9:21-26.) Paragraph 33, however, explicitly alleges that Plaintiff expected compensation for her work in the form of Defendant’s support.

D. Fifth Cause of Action (Unjust Enrichment)

Demurrer to the fifth cause of action is overruled. The Court follows the First District cases that conclude that unjust enrichment is a valid cause of action. Even if unjust enrichment were not a cause of action, courts have held that the same set of facts can give rise to claims for restitution under quasi-contract principles. (Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (6th Dist. 2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 221, 231.) Regardless of the title of the 5th cause of action, the Complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment principles.

E. Ruling

Demurrer is overruled as to all causes of action. Defendant shall file and serve an Answer no later than February 26, 2019, or seven calendar days after service of written notice of this ruling, whichever is later.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.