Potter v. Bland
136 Cal. App. 2d 125 ·
California Court of Appeal · Filed
Published · citable
Cited by 7
Holding
The court held that a postscript to a will, signed by the testatrix, constituted a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds for an agreement to devise property, and that the defendants were estopped from asserting the statute of frauds as a defense given the plaintiff’s fully executed performance and the resulting unconscionable injury and unjust enrichment that would occur without enforcement.
Statutes construed
- CCP § 1880
- PROB § 92
Cited by (7)
- EUGENE M. WILKISON III, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CYNTHIA RUTH WILKISON WIEDERKEHR, Defendant and Appellant (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 822
- THEODORE BRUNSON, Respondent, v. JERRELL BABB, as Executor, etc., et al., Appellants (1956) 145 Cal. App. 2d 214
- CONSTANT E. CUENIN et al., Appellants, v. E. D. LAKIN, as Executor, etc., et al., Respondents (1956) 146 Cal. App. 2d 855
- ETHEL H. VAN HOUTEN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THOMAS W. WHITAKER et al., Defendants and Appellants (1959) 169 Cal. App. 2d 510
- CHARLES A. THOMPSON JR., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ROBERT D. BOYD, Individually and as Co-executor, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants; ALBERT E. HILL, as Administrator With the Will Annexed, etc., Defendant and Respondent (1963) 217 Cal. App. 2d 365
- Estate of ELNORA BRENZIKOFER, Deceased. JOHN WRIGHT et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. KARL SCHWARZ, as Administrator, etc., Objector and Respondent (1996) 49 Cal. App. 4th 1461
- MARJORIE LUDWICKI, Plaintiff and Appellant v. BRUCE GUERIN, Individually and as Executor, etc., Defendant and Respondent (1961) 57 Cal. 2d 127