Kirschenmann v. Bender
Appellant Charles Kirschenmann appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment for respondents Robert and Stacie Bender (Bender) on the ground that appellant’s complaint for breach of oral contract was barred by the two-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 339.[1] Kirschenmann contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Bender did not establish that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. We will affirm.
Comments on Kirschenmann v. Bender