Categories
California Probate News

Estate of Holdaway Case, California Court Ruling Changes the Game for Estate Creditor Claims

The timely filing of a creditor’s claim tolls the one-year statute to bring claims against a decedent, and the creditor then has 90 days to bring suit after the rejection of a creditor’s claim, regardless of how long after the expiration of the one-year statute such rejection occurs.

Richard Holdaway died on June 13, 2013. On June 11, 2014, Patricia Everett petitioned for probate and filed a creditor’s claim seeking $90,875 for loans, unspecified “in-home services,” and certain personal property. In May 2015, the court dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute. Everett filed another petition for probate in December 2015. In May 2016, Holdaway’s son filed a competing petition and was appointed as executor. Everett’s petition was dismissed. In March 10, 2017, the executor formally rejected Everett’s creditor’s claim. Everett filed her suit on the rejected creditor’s claim on May 19, 2017. The executor demurred arguing, inter alia, that the action was time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Everett appealed.

The appellate court reversed. Everett’s complaint was not time-barred because (1) the one-year statute of limitations under section 366.2 was tolled from June 11, 2014, when she filed the creditor’s claim, to March 10, 2017 when it was formally rejected, and (2) she filed her complaint within 90 days of March 10, 2017. The statute of limitations did not recommence when Everett’s probate petition was dismissed in May 2015, since it is the personal representative’s power to reject a creditor’s claim, not the court’s. Holdaway’s argument that Everett only had two days after the rejection to file suit (which was what remained on the one-year statute of limitations), was based on unsound authority. Creditors have 90 days to bring an action after rejection of a claim, regardless of the time otherwise remaining on the statute of limitations.

Case Details:

  • Cite as: E070918
  • Filed: October 7, 2019
  • Court: Fourth District
  • Author: Daniel C. Kim, Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation
  • Headnote: Probate – Creditor’s Claims – Tolling by Filing Claim – Timeliness of Lawsuit Based on Rejection of Claim
  • Source: California Lawyers Association – Estate of Holdaway

    Full Opinion: Fourth District Opinion PDF

    California Court Ruling Changes the Game for Estate Creditor Claims: What Sacramento Families Need to Know

    If you’re managing an estate in California—or worried about creditors filing claims against a loved one’s estate—a recent appellate court decision has clarified critical timelines that could protect or jeopardize your family’s inheritance. The Estate of Holdaway caseoffers crucial guidance for executors, beneficiaries, and creditors navigating California’s probate system.

    Who This Affects

    This ruling is essential for:

  • California residents serving as executors or administrators of estates
  • Families facing creditor claims during probate proceedings
  • Creditors seeking payment from California estates
  • Anyone concerned about protecting their family’s assets from delayed claims
  • What Happened in the Estate of Holdaway Case?

    Richard Holdaway died on June 13, 2013. Nearly a year later, Patricia Everett filed a creditor’s claim for $90,875 and petitioned for probate. After multiple dismissals and competing petitions, Holdaway’s son was appointed executor in May 2016. The executor formally rejected Everett’s claim on March 10, 2017—nearly four years after Holdaway’s death.

    Everett filed her lawsuit on May 19, 2017, within 70 days of the rejection. The executor argued the suit was time-barred under California’s one-year statute of limitations (Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2). The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.

    The Court’s Game-Changing Decision

    The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, establishing two critical principles:

  • Filing a creditor’s claim tolls the statute of limitations: When Everett filed her creditor’s claim on June 11, 2014, the one-year clock stopped running. It remained paused until the executor formally rejected the claim on March 10, 2017.
  • Creditors get 90 days after rejection: After a claim is rejected, creditors have 90 days to file suit—regardless of how much time remains on the original one-year statute of limitations. The court rejected the executor’s argument that Everett only had two days left to file.
  • Why This Matters for California Families

    This ruling has significant implications for estate administration:

  • Extended liability windows: Executors cannot rely on the one-year statute alone to close an estate. A timely-filed creditor’s claim can extend the period during which lawsuits can be filed.
  • Importance of formal rejection: The statute doesn’t restart when a probate petition is dismissed. Only a personal representative can formally reject a claim, not the court.
  • Strategic timing for executors: Executors should promptly address creditor claims to avoid indefinite tolling of the statute of limitations.
  • Protection for legitimate creditors: Creditors who file claims on time preserve their right to pursue payment even if probate proceedings are delayed.
  • Real-World Application: How Can California Families Protect Themselves?

    Whether you’re planning your estate or managing one after a loved one’s death, understanding creditor claim procedures is essential:

  • For estate planners: Proper trust structures can help assets bypass probate entirely, shielding them from creditor claims subject to these extended timelines.
  • For executors: Respond to creditor claims promptly and formally. Delaying rejection only extends your exposure to lawsuits.
  • For beneficiaries: Understand that estate distribution may be delayed if creditor claims are pending, even years after death.
  • For creditors: File your claim within the statutory period and preserve your 90-day window after rejection.
  • Case Details

  • Case Number: E070918
  • Filed: October 7, 2019
  • Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
  • Legal Issue: Probate – Creditor’s Claims – Tolling by Filing Claim – Timeliness of Lawsuit Based on Rejection of Claim
  • Source: California Lawyers Association – Estate of Holdaway

    Full Opinion: Fourth District Opinion PDF

    How California Probate & Trust, PC Can Help

    Navigating creditor claims and probate proceedings requires experienced legal guidance. At California Probate & Trust, PC, our certified estate planning specialists help Sacramento, Fair Oaks, and San Francisco families with:

  • Probate administration and executor guidance
  • Creditor claim evaluation and response
  • Revocable trust creation to avoid probate
  • Comprehensive estate plans that protect your family’s legacy
  • We’ve represented thousands of California families, providing transparent service and compassionate guidance through complex legal matters. Our experienced attorneys understand the anxiety that comes with probate proceedings and creditor disputes—and we’re here to protect what matters most to you.

    Schedule Your Free Consultation

    Don’t wait until creditor issues threaten your family’s inheritance. Contact California Probate & Trust, PC today for a free one-hour consultation. We’ll review your situation, explain your options, and develop a strategy tailored to your needs.

    Call (866) 674-1130 or visit cpt.law to schedule your appointment.

    Legal Disclaimer

    This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information presented is based on California law as interpreted in the Estate of Holdaway case and may not apply to your specific situation. Estate planning and probate law is complex and varies based on individual circumstances. For personalized legal guidance, please consult with a qualified California estate planning attorney. California Probate & Trust, PC is licensed to practice law in California. Past case results do not guarantee future outcomes.