Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239848/winslett-v-1811-27th-ave-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,067 chars

In the sole case on which Sagi relies, Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 758, the appellant tried and lost fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims in a bench trial, and then sought to base her appeal on a contract theory, representing to the appellate court that she tried the case on contract as well as tort theories. ( *45Id. at pp. 1308-1310, 1313, 1316-1317, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 758.) Finding that representation not borne out by the record, the appellate court refused to allow the change of position. ( Id. at pp. 1316-1317, 1320, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 758.) This is plainly a different situation from what we have here. It is one thing for a party to shift positions on appeal when the change is to the basis of the ruling under review, thereby depriving the trial court of the opportunity to correct error in the first instance. It is quite another when the change relates to some collateral ruling not under review. In that circumstance-which is this case-we enforce consistency only when the rules of judicial or equitable estoppel demand it.

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text