Incorporation attorney for California

Widows of Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments members were entitled to pensions, where, although their formal claims were filed more then three years after their husbands died, the city was stopped to assert the statute of limitations (CCP §§ 312, 338), the widows having earlier made inquiries of the city and relied on its bona fide legal advice that their eligibility under the former city charter, requiring that they be married more then one year before their husbands’ deaths, had been annulled under a charter amendment applying a more restrictive marriage condition, which they did not meet, and where such amendment was later held to be unconstitutional; but the city was not estopped to assert the claims provisions of CCP §§ 363, 376 of the city charter, restricting retroactive benefits to those accruing six months prior to the filing of the claims. Driscoll v. Los Angeles (Cal. Sept. 13, 1967), 67 Cal. 2d 297, 61 Cal. Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245, 1967 Cal. CALIFLAW 220. The  incorporation attorney California helps a business person in litigations.

 

The City of Los Angeles was not stopped to assert the three-year statute of limitations (CCP §§ 312, 338) in denying pensions to widows of police and fire department members where, although such denial was based on a city charter amendment later held to be unconstitutional, the widows’ failure to file formal claims for their pensions or to commence their court action within three years of their husbands’ deaths was not positively shown to have been due to ignorance or to reliance on any conduct or advice by the city. Driscoll v. Los Angeles (Cal. Sept. 13, 1967), 67 Cal. 2d 297, 61 Cal. Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245, 1967 Cal. CALIFLAW 220.

 

The City of Los Angeles was estopped to assert the statute of limitations (CCP §§ 312, 338) to deny the award of a pension to the widow of a retired employee where, although her formal claim, filed more than three years after the accrual of her cause of action, was denied “upon the advice of the City Attorney,” she had made an informal claim years earlier, on her husband’s death and had relied on the city’s bona fide legal advice that her eligibility under the former city charter, requiring that she was married more then one year before her husband’s death had been annulled under a charter amendment applying a more restrictive marriage condition, which she did not meet, and where such amendment was later held to be unconstitutional. Driscoll v. Los Angeles (Cal. Sept. 13, 1967), 67 Cal. 2d 297, 61 Cal. Rptr. 661, 431 P.2d 245, 1967 Cal. CALIFLAW 220.

 

Where representatives of a city have given information or advice which induces a claimant to a pension not to press his claim, the city may be estopped to assert the bar of the statute of limitations, but conduct which estops the city with respect to the establishment of the pensionable status does not necessarily stop the city from asserting a bar to retroactive benefits. Phillis v. Santa Barbara (CalifLaw 2d Dist. Aug. 7, 1968), 264 CalifLaw 2d 781, 70 Cal. Rptr. 573, 1968 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2145.