Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: broken promise to will real estate to me & I did all the work for 30+ years

The basic, old-fashioned law on this subject is that a will is an "ambulatory document," meaning that its maker can change it at any time, that prospective heirs have no rights but only a "mere expectancy" until, by the death of the maker, the will becomes frozen and has legal effect. A major corollary to this rule is that a promise to make a will, or to make particular bequests in a will, becomes enforceable under contract-law rules but only after the promisor dies, meaning the contract is enforced against the estate, if at all.

Of course, under contract law a contract affecting an interest in real property must be in writing, under California's statute of frauds, which is part of both the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the last 50 or so years (and to some extent even before that), the courts recognized the harshness of strict application of these legal principles in across-the-board fashion, and began creating exceptions to allow justice to be done where it was clear that someone was going to get the fuzzy end of the lollipop.

One notable case contains a fact pattern somewhat similar to what you describe and has a result I think you would like. The case is Monarco vs. LoGreco, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1950 and reported at 35 Cal.2d 621. You may be able to find it on line or at a library; if not, send me your address and I'll mail you a copy.

Basically, the Monarco case sets forth a rule that if someone misleads another into thinking he will inherit the farm, and in reasonable reliance on the promises and other misleading conduct the prospective heir spends a number of years working the property, making it valuable and profitable, the owner or the owner's heirs or executors cannot use the statute of frauds to prevent the disinherited victim from asserting the oral contract to make a bequest of the farm to the victim. The concept is called "promissory estoppel" and it is said that the promisor is "estopped" (equitably barred) to plead the statute of frauds as a defense to a suit on the oral contract to make the bequest.

Since 1950, the doctrine in Monarco has been modified, shaped and refined by subsequent cases, but not overturned. Your situation may be governed by the Monarco estoppel rule.

Please feel free to contact me with particulars for a free initial consultation. Keep in mind that you probably can't (and shouldn't) take any legal action until the death of the owner-promisor, but it wouldn't hurt to start laying the factual and legal groundwork while he's still alive.

Check my Web site at www.bizlaw.ws.