Is there any merit to defendant's claim that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the statute of limitations are erroneous as a matter of law?

Nor is there any merit to defendant's claim in her reply brief that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the statute of limitations are erroneous as a matter of law because they are contrary to uncontroverted admissions in the pleading. We realize that "findings of fact contrary to [the] facts admitted in the pleadings must be disregarded." (Stoneman v. Fritz (1939) 34 Cal.App.2d 26, 31, 92 P.2d 1035.) But, while both plaintiff and defendant in their pleadings admitted that a deed was tendered by plaintiff to defendant in October 1973, which was never executed, this statement of fact does not require a finding that the statute of limitations began to run at that time. Although plaintiff alleged that in furtherance of an oral agreement between the parties title was taken in defendant's

Page 320