Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, Ct. No. PB53998 Louie L. Vega, Judge.
Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, Catherine E. Bennett, Joseph D. Hughes and Kurt D. Van Sciver for Defendant and Appellant.
Carl W. Hart, Jr. for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
LEVY, Acting P.J.
Appellant, Kirk Tinsley, and respondent, Grant Tinsley, are brothers. Upon their mother’s death, Kirk and Grant became successor co-trustees of their mother’s trust. Based on mutual allegations of a failure to cooperate and the inability to resolve certain administrative matters, Kirk and Grant each filed a petition for instructions and removal of the other as co-trustee.
Because the parties share the same last name, they will be referred to by their first names. No disrespect is intended.
At a status hearing the parties agreed to narrow the focus of the case by submitting certain issues on the pleadings and holding an evidentiary hearing on two others. The parties agreed to submit the issues of trustee’s fees, reimbursement for money advanced on behalf of the trust, the payment of fees owed to an attorney, and taxes. The distribution of personal property and a dispute over their mother’s headstone were to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, the parties agreed to submit the personal property and headstone issues on the pleadings as well.
The trial court ruled on the submitted issues and the competing petitions for removal of the co-trustee. The court determined that it was in the best interest of the trust for only one brother to serve as trustee. The court then granted Grant’s petition and removed Kirk as co-trustee because Grant lives full time in the area. Kirk works and lives overseas.
Kirk argues the trial court erred in removing him as a co-trustee because the parties did not include that issue as one to be decided in the stipulation. According to Kirk, the court’s failure to give effect to the stipulation deprived him of his opportunity to be heard on the issue of his removal as a trustee.
As discussed below, Kirk is correct. The parties’ stipulation limited the scope of the issues that the trial court could consider. Accordingly, the portion of the order removing Kirk as a co-trustee will be reversed.
BACKGROUND
When differences arose between Kirk and Grant regarding the final administrative matters for the trust and trust assets, they each filed a petition for instructions and removal of the other as a co-trustee. Kirk filed his petition in July 2006 seeking instructions on the payment of trust expenses, reimbursement of trust funds, disposition of the personal property, filing of trust tax returns, and payment of attorney fees and costs. Kirk requested that Grant be removed as co-trustee based on allegations that Grant failed to cooperate, failed to account for trust assets, and engaged in conduct that caused the trust to incur extraordinary expenses and attorney fees.
Grant opposed Kirk’s petition and thereafter filed his own petition for instructions and removal of co-trustee. Grant requested instructions regarding reimbursement of expenses advanced by him to the trust, fees for his time, an accounting of trust property in Kirk’s possession, and attorney fees. Grant requested that Kirk be removed as co-trustee based on allegations that Kirk failed to cooperate, failed to account for trust assets, and engaged in conduct that caused the trust to incur extraordinary expenses and attorney fees.
At a status hearing held in January 2008, the parties agreed “to submit all matters to the court in writing so that it will obviate the need for a testimonial hearing.” The parties then filed briefs addressing the issues raised in their petitions for instructions. Regarding removal of each other as co-trustee, the parties simply repeated what was stated in their petitions.
Another status hearing was held on March 26, 2008. The court began with a chambers conference. On the record, the court explained “Counsel met in chambers with the court regarding the status of this matter, and we’ve narrowed down the focus of the case in terms of what still needs to be litigated.” Kirk’s counsel then summarized as follows:
“We had several outstanding issues, two of which we will continue with that we’ll need to set a hearing date for. The others we will submit on the papers. The ones that we will be submitting is the trustee’s fees for time spent administering the trust, reimbursement to each of the trustees for monies advanced on behalf of the trust, Chris Dietrich’s attorney’s fees [and] the tax returns. The two other outstanding issues are the headstone and personal property which we’ll need to have a hearing on.
“One of the issues we did not address back in chambers, though, that we may is the reimbursement for attorneys’ fees, for our fees, if we’re gonna -- if that’s still going to be contested or not. Because neither side -- both sides had left that open before.”
The court then responded “[w]e can just leave that as an open issue, counsel, and, at that time, you can either submit it on declarations or, again, we can always take evidence any other way that’s appropriate.”
Thereafter, Grant’s counsel stated “That sounds fine to me. We’re prepared to submit it with regard to the issues that [Kirk’s counsel] indicated will be submitted to the court, and then the remaining issues with regard to the headstone and the -- the personal property remain to be resolved at hearing.”
Before the next scheduled hearing, counsel informed the court that the parties had agreed to forego an evidentiary hearing on the disputes over the personal property and their mother’s headstone and instead would argue those issues. At the hearing, counsel limited the argument to those two issues and the matter was submitted.
In June 2008 the court issued a minute order. The court ruled on the submitted issues except for the tax returns. The court also removed Kirk as a trustee finding that it was in the best interest of the trust that only one of the two brothers serve. The court reasoned that Grant lives full time in the area and therefore can best respond to issues that may arise. The final order, reiterating the minute order, was filed in January 2010.
DISCUSSION
Kirk argues that the trial court improperly removed him as a trustee because that issue was not included in the stipulation as a matter to be decided. In other words, the court erroneously ruled on an issue that was not before it. According to Kirk, the court’s failure to give effect to the stipulation deprived Kirk of his opportunity to be heard on his removal as trustee of the trust.
A stipulation is an agreement between opposing counsel that serves to obviate the need for proof or to narrow the range of litigable issues. (County of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1118.) As an agreement, a stipulation is subject to the ordinary rules employed to interpret contracts. (Sy First Family Ltd. Partnership v. Cheung (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341.) Accordingly, in construing a stipulation, the court’s paramount consideration is the parties’ objective intent at the time they entered into the stipulation. (Ibid.)
Parties may agree by stipulation to limit the issues presented to the trial court and the court will respect such stipulation. (Title Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1992) 4 Cal.4th 715, 733.) Matters that, by stipulation, are not before the court cannot be the basis for the court’s ruling. (Assad v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1609, 1616.)
Here, the original stipulation specified the four issues that were to be submitted on the pleadings and the two issues that were to be submitted following an evidentiary hearing. A seventh issue, the payment of the current attorney fees, was left open for submission in the future based on either declarations or an evidentiary hearing. Thus, at the time the stipulation was entered, the parties did not agree to submit the entire case. No mention was made of the competing requests to remove the co-trustee either at the time the stipulation was entered or in later correspondence to the court. In light of the parties’ specificity, it is clear that the parties did not intend to submit the trustee removal issue. Accordingly, that issue was not submitted.
By ruling on the trustee removal before it was submitted, the court denied Kirk the opportunity to present further evidence and argument on the issue. (Cf. Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1286.) The court cannot base a ruling on a matter that is not before it. (Assad v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1616.) Thus, the court erred in removing Kirk as a co-trustee.
DISPOSITION
The portion of the order removing appellant as a trustee is reversed. Costs on appeal are awarded to appellant.
WE CONCUR: CORNELL, J., FRANSON, J.