Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose from an eminent domain proceedings in Douglas County. The Secretary of Transportation condemned a property in Lawrence owned by Doug Garber Construction, Inc. (Garber) to facilitate construction of the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT). Garber disputed the amount of compensation, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury determined that the value of the property was $112,000. Garber appealed, arguing that the district court erred by issuing two orders in limine that excluded certain valuation testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony at issue. View "Doug Garber Construction, Inc. v. King" on Justia Law

Water District No. 1 (WaterOne) of Johnson County filed an eminent domain petition seeking to condemn ten tracts of land. WaterOne pleaded that its interests would be “‘[s]ubject to existing easements of record.’” The district court granted the petition. D.P. and Wanda Bonham and their trust (collectively, the Bonhams) owned an easement in one of the ten condemned tracts. The Bonhams appealed the condemnation award and moved to void the district court’s order, asserting that WaterOne took their easement without complying with the Eminent Domain Procedure Act (EDPA) as to their easement. The district court denied the Bonhams’ motion to void, concluding that WaterOne did not condemn the Bonhams’ easement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that WaterOne’s petition contained no statutory defects; and (2) the Bonhams failed to establish an error in the journal entry. View "Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson County v. Prairie Ctr. Dev., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2011, Johnson County appraised the value of Kristin Wagner’s property at $569,000. Wagner filed a protest form with the Court of Tax Appeals (COTA), which determined that the appraised value for tax year 2011 should be reduced to $553,600. Wagner appealed. While the 2011 appeal was pending, the County appraised Wagner’s property for the 2012 tax year at $537,000. Wagner challenged the 2012 appraisal. On remand, with regard to the 2011 tax appeal, COTA established the the value of Wagner’s home at $494,200. COTA then established the value of Wagner’s property for the 2012 tax year at $494,200 - the same amount as the property’s 2011 final appraised value. Wagner filed a petition for judicial review. The court of appeals affirmed COTA’s decision, ruling that COTA properly used the 2011 valuation to determine the home’s value for the 2012 tax year. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that COTA ignored evidence in the record establishing that Wagner’s home suffered a 2.94 percent decrease in value between 2011 and 2012. Remanded with directions that Wagner’s home be valued at $479,600 for the 2012 tax year. View "In re Equalization Appeal of Wagner" on Justia Law

Carol Einsel filed a petition for partition against Rodney Einsel, her ex-husband. The ownership interests at stake involved the Einsel family ranch, which consisted mostly of land and mineral interests. Carol’s claim derived from a journal entry of divorce in the parties’ earlier divorce proceedings. The judge had awarded Carol forty percent of Rodney’s remainder interest in the inheritance he received during the marriage. Before the partition court, the parties primarily argued over whether Carol’s award was an interest in a money judgment or an interest in real property. The partition court found that Carol’s interest in Rodney’s inheritance was $27,521 and granted her a judgment in this amount. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the award was an interest in real property - not a money judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals reached the correct conclusion regarding the nature of Carol’s award - an interest in real property. Remanded. View "In re Estate of Einsel" on Justia Law

At dispute in this case was the statewide directive issued by David Harper, the Director of Property Valuation, to county appraisers requiring compliance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 79-1460. Under the statute, when a property owner successfully appeals a property valuation, the valuation may not be increased during the next two years unless certain conditions are met. In general, all other taxable real property is reappraised at fair market value annually. Petitioners, twenty-one boards of county commissioners, filed this original action in mandamus to challenge the constitutionality of section 79-1460 and Harper’s directive. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, holding (1) the statute is unconstitutional to the extent it prevents appraisers from valuing real property at its fair market value in any tax year; and (2) the constitutionally offending provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute. View "Bd. of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Jordan" on Justia Law

In 2012, Kansas City Power & Light Company (KCPL) condemned a power line easement bisected to tracts of land owned by the trusts for Daniel and Evelyn Strong. The jury awarded the Strongs $1,922,559 in compensation for the taking. Earlier, court-appointed appraisers had awarded the Strongs $96,465 in damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury award and the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying KCPL’s motions to exclude or strike the expert testimony evidence offered by the Strongs; (2) the district court did not err in permitting the Strongs’ experts to testify pursuant to a common-law “development approach”; and (3) the district court did not err in admitting evidence regarding a 2004 option contract the Strongs entered into with a developer. View "Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Strong" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the ownership of a 5.5-acre tract of real estate. Keith Elliott at one time deeded away the land to his then-wife’s daughter, Polly Grant, but continued living on the property. After Keith died, his daughter, Suzann Elliott, took possession of the disputed tract. The district court concluded that Keith regained possession of the disputed tract by adverse possession, which he then passed to Suzann by intestate succession. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Suzann did not carry her burden to present clear and positive proof that Keith’s possession was knowingly adverse, and therefore, her adverse possession claim failed. View "Ruhland v. Elliott" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain proceeding, the district court granted an easement over real estate owned by Plaintiff and appointed three appraisers to determine Plaintiff’s compensation for the taking. Plaintiff timely filed his appeal of the appraisers’ award. The district court subsequently granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. Approximately five months later, Plaintiff appealed again, citing Kansas’ saving statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-518, as authority for allowing his otherwise untimely second appeal. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s second appeal with prejudice, concluding that the saving statute does not apply in an eminent domain appeal. View "Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, the City of Basehor initiated a unilateral annexation of Cedar Lake Estates (Estates), a platted subdivision adjoining the City. Trustees of the Stueckemann Living Trust and the Cedar Lake Association (collectively, the Stueckemanns), sued the City seeking to invalidate the annexation on multiple grounds. The district court rejected all of the Stueckemanns’ contentions and upheld the City’s annexation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court and court of appeals did not err by concluding that (1) the City’s plan adequately described the land subject to the annexation; (2) the City’s service plan for police protection and for street and infrastructure maintenance was adequate; and (3) the City’s annexation was reasonable. View "Stueckemann v. City of Basehor" on Justia Law

In 1969, Grantors and an oil company entered into a continuing oil and gas lease covering Grantors’ property. Less than seven months later, Grantors entered into a mineral deed with Grantee covering the same property. The mineral deed had a primary term of fifteen years. In 2012, Plaintiffs, the sole heirs of Grantors, filed a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the royalty interest held by Defendants, the sole heirs of Grantee, had terminated. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that because the mineral deed stated that it was subject to the terms of the continuing oil and gas lease and because Grantor was a party to both the lease and the mineral deed, the parties intended that they be read together. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the “subject to” clause in the mineral deed did not incorporate the provisions of the lease; and (2) therefore, Defendants’ mineral interest did not continue past its fifteen-year term. View "Netahla v. Netahla" on Justia Law