Corporate legal advice center California

Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of an oral, voluntary, and continuing trust did not arise until he knew that trust was repudiated, when defendant unequivocally told him that loan agreement would not be lived up to and action was timely brought when filed within statutory period after acquisition of such knowledge, though plaintiff knew that defendant was not fulfilling promises made several years before, where defendant’s continuing reassurances and optimism amounted in legal affect to a renewal of original promises. Alton v. Rogers (CalifLaw Oct. 1, 1954), 127 CalifLaw 2d 667, 274 P.2d 487, 1954 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1397, cert. denied, (U.S. Apr. 1, 1955), 348 U.S. 982, 75 S. Ct. 573, 99 L. Ed. 764, 1955 U.S. CALIFLAW 993. Nakase law office gives you best corporate legal advice for your business issues.

In action for breach of express trust, statute starts running on communication of express repudiation of the trust to trustor. Robison v. Hanley (CalifLaw 1st Dist. Nov. 9, 1955), 136 CalifLaw 2d 820, 289 P.2d 560, 1955 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1561.

Where trustee’s predecessor in interest, court that administered trust, and beneficiary thereof, all had notice of facts that formed basis of alleged constructive trust cause of action, trustee’s personal lack of knowledge respecting those facts did not toll running of statutory period of limitations. Security First Nat'l Bank v. Ross (CalifLaw 4th Dist. Mar. 25, 1963), 214 CalifLaw 2d 424, 29 Cal. Rptr. 538, 1963 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2625.

Where trustee, through tax sale, acquired three-fourths interest in property in which trust had one-fourth interest, as to tolling of statute of limitations, constructive notice of any wrongdoing by trustee to all persons interested was given by public nature of tax sale, acquisition of three-fourths interest in individual name of trustee, recordation of tax deeds showing such interest, considerations given to acquisition in trust estate proceedings concerning trustee’s accounting, and trustee’s refusal to list three-fourths interest as asset of trust estate. Security First Nat'l Bank v. Ross (CalifLaw 4th Dist. Mar. 25, 1963), 214 CalifLaw 2d 424, 29 Cal. Rptr. 538, 1963 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2625.

In action against a title insurance company for conspiracy to defraud, the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit on statute of limitations grounds, where the court recognized that the action was filed within three years of plaintiffs’ alleged discovery of the fraud. Under CCP § 338(d), a fraud action must be filed within three years, and the limitations period does not begin to run until the aggrieved party discovers the facts constituting the fraud. Defendant contented that the last overt act doctrine, under which the cause of action accrues on commission of the last overt act pursuant to the conspiracy, applied to limit subd. (d). However, plaintiffs alleged facts supporting a tolling of the limitations period due to the late discovery. The fact they did not additionally allege tolling under the last overt act doctrine was irrelevant; that omission could not have defeated the delayed discovery tolling that subd. (d) allows. Aaroe v. First American Title Ins. Co. (CalifLaw 1st Dist. July 18, 1990), 222 CalifLaw 3d 124, 271 Cal. Rptr. 434, 1990 CalifLawCALIFLAW 745.