Spears v. Spears - Case Brief

Case Number: A164622
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four
Date Filed: September 01, 2025

← Back to Case Summary

Holding

The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing Brian Spears’ petition because his “Creditor’s Claim” filed on Judicial Council Form DE‑172 constituted a proper amended pleading addressing the deficiencies identified in the sustained demurrer; the claim may proceed against the trust under Probate Code §§ 19000, 19150‑19151, and § 850, and although the oral agreement concerning the modular‑home purchase is barred by the two‑year statute of limitations, the claim based on the alleged $60,000 repayment agreement is not time‑barred and therefore must survive the dismissal.

Narrative

Lead – In a decision that clarifies the procedural pathways for creditors of a decedent’s trust, the California Court of Appeal reversed a lower‑court dismissal of a petition by Brian Spears, who sought to be recognized as a creditor of his late father’s revocable trust and to compel accounting from the trustee, his step‑mother Therese Spears. The ruling underscores that a creditor’s “Creditor’s Claim” filed on the proper probate form can satisfy a court’s demand for an amended pleading, and it delineates the limits of the statute of limitations and statute of frauds when oral agreements are invoked against a trust.

Procedural History – James Spears created a revocable trust in 2018, funded it with his separate‑property assets, and named his wife Therese as successor trustee upon his death in late 2020. In April 2021, while incarcerated, Brian Spears filed a petition in Humboldt County Superior Court requesting (1) removal of Therese as trustee, (2) an accounting, and (3) that he be added as a creditor of the trust under Probate Code §§ 19000, 19050, 19150‑19151. Therese demurred, arguing that Brian’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, that the alleged debts were personal to James and not chargeable to the trust, and that the pleading lacked specificity. The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend and later dismissed the case with prejudice after Brian allegedly failed to file an amended petition.

Brian appealed, contending that the “Creditor’s Claim” he filed on Judicial Council Form DE‑172—titled as a creditor’s claim but filed under the same case number—was his amended pleading, satisfying the court’s directive to provide greater detail. The appellate panel examined (1) whether the filing qualified as an amendment, (2) whether the trust could be sued in the absence of a probate proceeding, (3) the applicability of the two‑year limitations period to the two oral agreements alleged, and (4) whether the agreements fell within the statute of frauds.

Facts – The dispute centers on two alleged oral agreements: (a) a 2012 promise by James Spears to repay $60,000 that he and Therese had received from the State of California for the care of their granddaughter Janaea, with an acceleration clause that the debt would become due in full upon James’s death; and (b) a 1996‑97 agreement to sell a modular home to James and Therese for $30,000, payable in $300 monthly installments, of which only two payments were made before James’s death. Brian also claimed that the $1,000 bequest in the trust had been paid after he filed the petition, but he conceded that issue and focused solely on the creditor claim.

Issues

Whether the “Creditor’s Claim” on Form DE‑172 satisfies the trial court’s order to amend the pleading.
Whether a creditor may sue the trust directly when no probate administration has been opened and the trustee has not invoked the optional § 19000‑19403 notice‑to‑creditors procedure.
Whether the oral agreements are barred by the two‑year statute of limitations (CCP § 339).
Whether the agreements are unenforceable under the statute of frauds (Civil Code § 1624).

Court’s Reasoning

Amended Pleading – The appellate court applied the “reasonable interpretation” standard articulated in Mathews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, reading the filing as a whole. The “Creditor’s Claim” recited the same factual allegations as the original petition, but with added detail regarding the oral agreements, and it was filed under the same case number. The court concluded that Brian’s intent was to cure the pleading defects identified in the demurrer, and that the form used (DE‑172) does not defeat the substantive requirement that an amendment be filed. No authority was found supporting dismissal solely because the filing employed a probate‑specific form.

Jurisdiction Over the Trust – The court turned to Probate Code §§ 19400‑19402, which govern creditor claims when no probate proceeding exists and the trustee has not filed a notice‑to‑creditors. Section 19400 expressly allows a creditor to sue the trustee to enforce a debt against the settlor, and § 19402 limits a beneficiary’s personal liability to the extent the trust estate cannot satisfy the claim. The court rejected Therese’s reliance on Arluk Medical Center (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1324, noting that Arluk involved an opened probate estate and therefore was dicta on the scenario before the court. By interpreting §§ 19400‑19402 together with CCP § 377.40, the court affirmed that the trust—and its successor trustee—are proper defendants when no estate administration exists.

Statute of Limitations – The court distinguished the two agreements. For the modular‑home contract, the periodic $300 payments began in the mid‑1990s and the last payment was due well before James’s death; the two‑year limitation under CCP § 339 therefore ran long before the decedent’s death, rendering that portion of the claim time‑barred. Conversely, the $60,000 repayment agreement involved a single lump‑sum obligation that was to become due upon James’s death. Because the agreement contemplated a single performance date tied to death, the limitation period did not begin until that event occurred. The court found the pleading insufficient to show that the debt was divisible into periodic installments, and therefore the limitation period had not yet run. Accordingly, the claim based on the $60,000 repayment survives.

Statute of Frauds – Therese argued that both oral agreements fell within Civil Code § 1624(a)(5) because performance was not to occur during the promisor’s lifetime. The appellate court held that the statutes only apply when performance is impossible during the promisor’s life. Here, James could have performed the repayment before death; the agreement merely provided that any unpaid balance would accelerate upon death. The court cited Roy v. Salisbury (1942) 21 Cal.2d 176, emphasizing that a contract is not within the statute of frauds merely because performance may extend beyond the promisor’s life. Thus, the oral agreements are not barred by the statute of frauds.

Disposition – The trial court’s dismissal is reversed. The case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion, allowing Brian Spears to pursue his creditor claim on the $60,000 repayment agreement while the modular‑home claim remains barred.

Impact and Unresolved Issues – This opinion provides a clear roadmap for creditors seeking relief against a trust when no probate administration exists, confirming that a properly filed “Creditor’s Claim” can satisfy an amendment requirement even if the form is traditionally used for estate claims. It also clarifies that a single‑performance debt tied to a decedent’s death does not trigger the two‑year limitations period until the death occurs, a point that may affect future disputes over “death‑accelerated” contracts.

Nevertheless, the decision leaves open the question of how courts should evaluate the sufficiency of factual detail in a creditor’s claim when the underlying agreement is oral and the alleged payments are ambiguous. Lower courts may now face heightened scrutiny in demanding specificity, yet the appellate court stopped short of prescribing a concrete pleading standard. Future litigation will likely flesh out the boundary between permissible “reasonable interpretation” and a pleading that is so vague as to be indefensible.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code §§ 19000, 19050, 19150‑19151 – creditor‑claim procedures.
Probate Code §§ 19400‑19402 – creditor claims when no probate proceeding is opened and the trustee has not filed a notice‑to‑creditors.
Probate Code § 850(a)(3)(A) & (C) – actions against a trustee to enforce a debt of the settlor.
California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 339, 366.2, 377.40, 377.11 – statutes of limitations, survival of causes of action, and successors in interest.
Civil Code § 1624(a)(5) – statute of frauds for contracts not to be performed during the promisor’s lifetime.
Key Cases: Mathews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756; Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Inc. v. Dobler (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1324; Roy v. Salisbury (1942) 21 Cal.2d 176; Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32; LeBrun v. CBS Television Studios, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 199; Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486.