When is a Stipulation Valid?

Ever had the opposing party “stipulate” to something, only to then renege on the agreement?  When is a stipulation valid?  This can be a headache in discovery matters where stipulations as to timing are common.  The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed that question last Thursday in In re Guardianship & Estate of Echevarria, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (2016).

The Court had previously discussed how stipulations “are of an inestimable value in the administration of justice, and valid stipulations are controlling and conclusive and both trial and appellate courts are bound to enforce them.”[1]  It had defined a valid stipulation to require “mutual assent to its terms and either a signed writing by the party against whom the stipulation is offered or an entry into the court minutes in the form of an order.”[2]  Applied to the facts of this particular case, there was no valid stipulation.

Here, although Michael had notice of the hearing during which the stipulation was created, he was not present at that hearing.  The record does not show that Michael, as the party against whom the stipulation is now being offered, assented to the terms of the parties’ stipulation.  Therefore, we hold that the district court erred by approving the stipulation without Michael’s presence or signature indicating Michael’s assent.

It is axiomatic that a valid stipulation requires mutual assent by all interested parties.  Without mutual assent, the stipulation is void.[3]

If the stipulation was by mutual assent, it is enforceable.

[1] Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Bullock Insulation, Inc., 124 Nev. 1102, 1118, 197 P.3d 1032, 1042 (2008).
[2] Id.
[3] 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 at 9 (emphasis in original).