Brian Spears, the son of James Spears, filed a petition seeking to be named as a creditor of his late father’s trust, remove his stepmother, Therese Spears, as trustee, and obtain a trust accounting.
Brian, who filed his petition while incarcerated, alleged that Therese personally owed him $40,000 based on two alleged oral agreements and that his father’s trust was liable for the debts as community property debt.
Therese challenged the petition on multiple grounds via demurrer, arguing: 1) that Brian lacked standing for certain relief requested after receiving his $1,000 bequest under the trust; 2) that the alleged debts were personal liabilities rather than obligations of the trust; and 3) that Brian had not described the agreements with sufficient specificity.
At the hearing, Brian conceded that he had received his $1,000 bequest and only contested Therese’s demurrer as to his creditor’s claim. The trial court sustained Therese’s demurrer with leave to amend, thereby allowing Brian to amend his petition to provide the required specificity.
Brian subsequently filed a document labeled “Creditor’s Claim,” asserting the same two breaches of oral agreement previously alleged and including the requested specificity. Therese again objected by demurrer to Brian’s “Creditor’s Claim” document, this time alleging that Brian was required to file his claim against the decedent’s estate, not the trust, and that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations and statute of frauds.
The trial court sustained Therese’s demurrer with leave to amend and ultimately dismissed the matter with prejudice following a determination that Brian had failed to file an amended pleading.
Brian appealed, contending that his filing of the document titled “Creditor’s Claim” satisfied the court’s order and that the dismissal was improper. The appellate court agreed with Brian that his “Creditor’s Claim” document should have been considered an amended pleading, as the filing added the specificity required by the trial court and was submitted under the same case number, demonstrating Brian’s intent to pursue his claim.
In response, Therese offered several alternative rationales for affirming the trial court’s order of dismissal; however, her argument that Brian was required to bring his action against the estate and not the trust is most relevant to our purposes here.
