Plaintiff, the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services

 

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff, the Director of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), filed a complaint seeking reimbursement of all Medi-Cal benefits paid on behalf of a decedent during her lifetime. Defendants, the decedent's grandchildren, asserted a defense that the claim was time-barred. The San Mateo County Superior Court, California, entered judgment in the Director's favor. Defendants appealed.

 

Overview: Petitioner got relief under the probate code 12200

 

Defendants claimed the one-year statute of limitations under Code Civ. Proc., § 366.3, applied because the Director's claim arose from a promise or agreement with a decedent to distribution from an estate or trust. The Director claimed Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (a), applied because the Director's right to reimbursement was a liability created by statute. The court concluded that the three-year statute of limitations under § 338, subd. (a), prescribed the period in which the Director could file suit. The Director's claim arose from statute, not from a promise by the decedent to make a distribution from her trust. The Director's complaint seeking reimbursement made no reference to a "promise" or "agreement" of the decedent to pay the amount it claimed. It sought, on authority of Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14009.5, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 50961, to recover reimbursement for the amounts it had previously paid for the decedent's nursing home care. DHCS was statutorily entitled - indeed required - to recoup the benefits paid on the decedent's behalf regardless of any "agreement" on her part.

 

Outcome

The judgment was affirmed.

Procedural Posture

Two individuals filed a collection action against petitioner contractor for commissions allegedly due them. The contractor asserted, as a special defense, that the individuals' contracts were illegal. The contractor requested the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) to determine the validity of his defense. He filed a petition for writ of prohibition after the trial court conditionally granted his request.

 

Overview:

The individuals sued the contractor claiming that they had helped him procure war housing contracts; he asserted that, by presidential order, contracts involving the procurement of war housing contracts were illegal. The contractor requested, pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 597, that the trial court determine the validity of his special defense before the case went to trial. He applied for a writ of prohibition after the trial court decided to submit issue to the jury and ordered that, if the jury decided the issue against the contractor, it would proceed to consider the remaining issues in the case. The contractor sought to prohibit the trial court from proceeding in the manner it proposed, claiming that because a legal issue was presented, only the trial court could decide it. In denying the contractor's writ request, the court held that the trial court clearly had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. It presumed that the trial court would properly hear and determine all questions and give a correct judgment on them. If the trial court determined, as the case progressed, that the defense presented a purely legal issue, it could modify the prior order.

 

Outcome

The court discharged an alternative writ of prohibition and denied the peremptory writ.