Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey
6 P.3d 713, 24 Cal. 4th 301, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 792 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An action against a surviving spouse to recover a debt of a deceased spouse, even a debt for necessaries of life, is governed by the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against a decedent as prescribed by the Probate Code, not a more general statute of limitations for the underlying type of debt.
Facts:
- Jean Rumsey incurred hospital bills totaling $103,715.95 for treatment of cancer during her final illness.
- These medical expenses were considered 'necessaries of life' and were recorded as an open book account.
- Jean Rumsey died on November 4, 1990, leaving the hospital bills unpaid.
- The hospital assigned the accounts to the Collection Bureau of San Jose (CBSJ) for collection.
- CBSJ sought to recover the debt from Jean Rumsey's surviving spouse, Donald Rumsey.
- Jean Rumsey's estate was not subject to formal probate administration.
Procedural Posture:
- Collection Bureau of San Jose (CBSJ) filed a complaint against Donald Rumsey in the superior court (trial court) on November 1, 1994, nearly four years after Jean Rumsey's death.
- Mr. Rumsey demurred to the complaint, arguing the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Probate Code section 13554 and Code of Civil Procedure former section 353.
- After several demurrers and amendments, the trial court held a trial on the sole legal issue of the applicable statute of limitations.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Rumsey, finding that the one-year limitations period controlled and the action was time-barred.
- CBSJ, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that CBSJ had a separate cause of action under the Family Code governed by a four-year statute of limitations.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to resolve the conflict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the one-year statute of limitations for actions on a decedent's liabilities, as specified in the Probate Code, apply to a creditor's action against a surviving spouse for a deceased spouse's debt for necessaries of life, thereby preempting the general four-year statute of limitations for open book accounts?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes, the one-year statute of limitations for actions on a decedent's liabilities applies and preempts other general statutes of limitations. Probate Code section 13554 explicitly incorporates the one-year limitations period from former Code of Civil Procedure section 353 for 'any debt' of a deceased spouse enforced against a surviving spouse. The court's reasoning rests on several principles of statutory construction. First, the plain language of Probate Code section 13554(c) is a clear and express command that must be given effect. Second, the Probate Code provisions are more specific, as they directly address the liability of a surviving spouse for a deceased spouse's debts, and specific statutes control over general ones like the Family Code's provision on necessaries or the Code of Civil Procedure's provision on open book accounts. Third, the Probate Code section is the later enactment, superseding the earlier, conflicting statute. Finally, applying a four-year limit would contravene the strong public policy of expeditious estate administration and create anomalous conflicts with the surviving spouse's time-limited reimbursement rights under Family Code section 920.
Dissenting - Werdegar, J.
No, the one-year statute of limitations does not apply because the surviving spouse has an independent liability for necessaries of life under the Family Code, which is governed by the four-year statute of limitations for open book accounts. The liability created by Family Code section 914 is a direct, personal obligation of the surviving spouse, not a derivative one that changes upon the death of the debtor spouse. The cause of action against the surviving spouse personally is independent of any action against the decedent's estate and therefore does not interfere with the public policy of expeditious estate administration. The majority's reliance on the surviving spouse's reimbursement rights is misplaced, as a creditor's right to collect a debt should not be limited by the debtor's separate right to seek reimbursement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the primacy of the Probate Code's procedural framework for handling a decedent's debts, establishing that its specific, shorter statute of limitations overrides more general, longer ones. It reinforces the strong public policy favoring the swift and final administration of estates, providing certainty to surviving spouses and heirs. By doing so, the ruling places a significant burden on creditors to be diligent in identifying a debtor's death and pursuing claims within the strict one-year period, regardless of the underlying nature of the debt. This case serves as a crucial precedent in debt collection involving deceased individuals, clarifying that the event of death fundamentally alters the applicable legal timeline for recovery.
