Appellate Court Affirmed Summary Judgment Based Upon Different Grounds Than Trial Court.

A petitioner brought an action seeking to invalidate amendments to a survivor’s trust. The defendants’ answer alleged the claims were barred by statutes of limitation, res judicata and laches. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon collateral estoppel and statutes of limitation, and never reached the issue of laches. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, but based its holding upon laches, which the opinion states is “a theory the parties briefed and argued in the trial court and on appeal,” despite the fact its grounds for affirmance differed from the grounds upon which the trial court based its ruling. Drake v. Pinkham (Cal. App. Third Dist.; June 21, 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 400, [158 Cal.Rptr. 3d 115].