In Dawes v. Rich (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 24, a husband was sued and the litigation went on for years. His wife died in 1990, at least two years before the plaintiffs obtained the first of three judgments against him. The husband then declared bankruptcy. Eventually the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the wife's estate was subject to their judgments. The Court of Appeal held that a decedent wife's estate is liable for community debts incurred by a surviving spouse, but that the plaintiffs' action was untimely because the estate's liability was subject to former section 353. The plaintiffs argued that the protracted nature of their litigation against the husband made application of the statute of limitations particularly unfair to them. The Dawes court acknowledged the plaintiffs' argument, but explained that in adopting the limitations period, the Legislature plainly recognized the risk that in unusual circumstances creditors would not be able to bring an action within one year of death. Given the history of the statute, the court could not relieve the plaintiffs from its operation. ( Id. at pp. 32-36.) In Dawes v. Rich (1997) creditors attempted to reach property of a deceased spouse in order to satisfy a debt that had been incurred by the surviving spouse during the marriage. Since the community is liable for debts incurred by either party during the marriage, the decedent was personally liable for the debt, to the extent of her share of the community property, and the liability survived her death. Therefore, the statute of limitations in section 366.2 applied to bar any action to recover from her estate brought more than a year after her death. The plaintiffs in Dawes argued that applying the bar of section 366.2 in their circumstances was unfair, as they had been engaged in protracted litigation against the surviving spouse, during which the decedent had died, and they did not prevail in their lawsuit until over a year following her death. Therefore, they did not have a judgment to enforce against the estate within the statutory time. The court rejected this argument, finding that it was a risk recognized by the Legislature that "in unusual circumstances creditors would not be able to bring an action within one year of death." ( Dawes, supra, 60 Cal. App. 4th at p. 36, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d