Procedural Posture
Plaintiff individual appealed an order from the Superior Court of Stanislaus County (California), which granted a new trial in favor of defendant corporations in an action for damages for breach of contract for personal services.
Overview
The trial court awarded plaintiff individual a judgment against defendant corporations in a breach of a personal services contract that was rendered impossible to complete through the sale of defendants. The trial court entered an order that granted defendants a new trial. Plaintiff appealed the order granting a new trial. The trial court's judgment granting the new trial was affirmed. The court held that there was a distinct conflict of evidence that related to special affirmative defenses, and the first special defense merited a specific determination by the trial court. The second affirmative defense also should have compelled a finding as to whether or not plaintiff had exercised reasonable attempts to mitigate his damages by securing employment of the same kind from other can manufacturers or can end manufacturers. Thus, the expression by the trial court of this ground for granting the new trial was legitimate.
Outcome: business formation attorney
The court affirmed the judgment that granted defendant individual a new trial because defendant's second affirmative defense should have compelled a finding as to whether or not plaintiff had exercised reasonable attempts to mitigate damages by securing employment from other can or can end manufacturers.
Procedural Posture
Appellant, a son who challenged his deceased father's exercise of a power of appointment, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which sustained respondent trustee's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the son's petition alleging that his father had exceeded the scope of the power of appointment by excluding the son from any share of the appointed property.
Overview
The father was the lifetime beneficiary of the income from a testamentary trust created by the grandfather, who died prior to the enactment of the California Powers of Appointment Act, Prob. Code, § 600 et seq. The grandfather's will gave the father a power of appointment, providing that a portion of the assets from the trust would be distributed upon the father's death to the father's three children as appointed in the father's will. The court held that the father could not exclude the son because the applicable case law at the time the grandfather executed his will made the power of appointment nonexclusive, such that no heir within the appointed group could be excluded from at least a substantial share. Although Prob. Code, § 652, provided for such exclusion, the court construed Prob. Code, § 601, to require application of the previous case law, giving effect to the grandfather's presumed intent under Prob. Code, § 21102, subd. (a). Moreover, it would be unconstitutional to apply § 652 retroactively to the son's vested rights. The petition was not untimely under Prob. Code, § 16460. The proper remedy was to award the son a substantial share, in accordance with Prob. Code, § 670.
Outcome
The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine what would constitute a substantial share of the estate.