{"id":121,"date":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=121"},"modified":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","slug":"gonzalez-v-community-mortuary-impracticability-equitable-defense-bench-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=121","title":{"rendered":"Gonzalez v. Community Mortuary \u2014 Impracticability of Performance Is an Equitable Defense Tried to the Court, Not the Jury"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Gonzalez v. Community Mortuary, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D084738<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Breach of contract; impracticability of performance; impossibility doctrine; jury versus bench trial; third party beneficiary standing; mortuary services<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Jose Gonzalez, Jr., a long-haul truck driver from San Diego, died unexpectedly in Texas in March 2020. The day after Jose died, another man with a strikingly similar name, Jesse Gilbert Gonzales, also died in the same county. The Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s office tagged both bodies as unidentified, and the bodies were eventually mixed up. Jose’s family in San Diego hired Community Mortuary to prepare and transport Jose’s body home for funeral services. The mortuary received what it was told was Jose’s body and arranged for funeral services. The family conducted the service and burial. Only later did the family discover the body they had buried was Jesse, and that Jose’s body had been mistakenly cremated in Texas.<\/p>\n

Jose’s widow, daughter, and several other family members sued the California mortuary for negligence and breach of contract, among other claims. The mortuary asserted the affirmative defense of impracticability of performance, arguing that the Texas medical examiner’s mistake made it impossible for the mortuary to perform its obligations correctly. The trial court submitted the impracticability defense to the jury, which found in the mortuary’s favor on both the negligence and contract claims. The court also granted nonsuit against the extended family members on the contract claim, ruling that only Celina, the widow, had standing as a contracting party.<\/p>\n

The family appealed only the contract verdict, arguing that impracticability is an equitable defense for the trial court rather than the jury, and that other family members had standing as third party beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, reversed in part. Addressing what it described as an open question in California, the court held that impracticability of performance (formerly known as impossibility of performance) is an equitable defense that must be tried to the court rather than the jury. The defense traces back to common law equity, requires balancing of factors that go beyond the legal elements of breach, and is functionally similar to other equitable defenses traditionally decided by judges.<\/p>\n

Because the trial court erroneously submitted the equitable defense to the jury, the verdict on the breach of contract cause of action could not stand. The court reversed and remanded for a bench trial of the impracticability defense and, if the defense fails, a trial on damages.<\/p>\n

The court rejected the family’s second argument. Only the contracting party (here, Celina as the surviving spouse who hired the mortuary) had standing to sue for breach of contract. Other family members were not intended third party beneficiaries because the contract did not reflect a clear intention to benefit them as legal parties. Their interest in the proper handling of their loved one’s remains, while real, did not transform them into intended beneficiaries of the contract for legal purposes. The trial court’s nonsuit ruling on standing was affirmed.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n