Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Marvin Hansford was named and served as a defendant in a real property partition action. Although he did not respond to the partition petition and failed to claim that he was the sole owner of any of the legally described property, he later sought to establish a claim to a portion of the partitioned land against its purchaser. The district court granted the purchaser's motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower courts did not err in granting summary judgment to the purchaser, holding that the failure of a party to take a direct appeal challenging the description of the property in a partition action precludes that party from making a collateral attack on the partition orders. View "Hansford v. Silver Lake Heights, LLC" on Justia Law

This case arose as an interpleader action to settle the rights to one-half of a brokerage commission resulting from a residential real estate transaction. Reece & Nicholas Realtors, Inc. (RAN), the listing broker, refused to split the brokerage commission with Patrick McGrath, who acted as the broker for the buyer. McGrath was a licensed Kansas attorney but was not licensed under the Kansas Real Estate Brokers' and Salespersons' License Act (KREBSLA). RAN contended it was statutorily prohibited from paying a commission to any person not licensed under the KREBSLA. McGrath maintained that, as an attorney, he was exempt from the requirements of the KREBSLA. The district court granted RAN's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an attorney is exempt from the provisions of the KREBLA, including the prohibition against splitting a fee with a nonlicensee, only to the extent he or she is performing activities that are encompassed within or incidental to the practice of law; (2) this attorney exemption does not create an exception to the commission-splitting prohibition of KREBSLA; and (3) consequently, an attorney who is not licensed under the KREBSLA cannot share in a real estate brokerage commission. View "Stewart Title of the Midwest v. Reece & Nichols Realtors" on Justia Law

James Woods appealed the district court's dismissal of his appeal of the appraisers' award in an eminent domain action initiated by the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas. The district court found that Woods' notice of appeal, filed forty-eight days after the filing of the appraisers' report, was untimely. Woods contended that Unified Government failed to comply with the notice requirements applicable to eminent domain proceedings and, therefore, the district court should have extended the thirty-day statutory deadline for appealing the appraisers' award. The Supreme Court dismissed Woods' appeal, holding that the district court did not have the authority to extend or modify the jurisdictional requirement that a party's notice of appeal of an appraisers' award must be filed within thirty days of the filing of the appraisers' report. View "Woods v. Unified Gov't of WYCO/KCK" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain proceeding, Landowner, Manhattan Ice and Cold Storage, initiated district court review of the $3.2 million appraisers' award for the taking of three tracts of land by the condemning authority, the City of Manhattan. The jury returned a verdict of $3.5 million. Landowner appealed, arguing that the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and refusal to instruct on special use prevented it from presenting its theory of the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Landowner's challenges to the trial judge's evidentiary rulings lacked merit and/or resulted in no prejudice; and (2) the jury instructions given in this case were legally sound. View "Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v. City of Manhattan" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain action, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (Unified Government) condemned a shopping center owned by Kansas City Mall Associates (KC Mall). The jury awarded compensation of approximately $7 million to KC Mall. KC Mall appealed, arguing that the district court erred by admitting evidence from a 2005 tax appeal as well as certain testimony and reports from appraisal experts for Unified Government. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the 2005 tax appeal evidence was admissible for purposes of impeachment as well as substantive evidence; and (2) the district court did not err by admitting the testimony and reports of Unified Government's expert appraisers because zoning at the time of a taking is only one of the factors to be considered in determining highest and best use of a property subject to eminent domain. View "Kan. City Mall Assocs. v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/KCKS " on Justia Law

Oscar Armendariz, the owner of a tract of land subject to eminent domain proceedings, appealed the district court's order determining the final distribution of an appraisers' award. Armedariz contended the district court erred in distributing a portion of the award based on quantum meruit to Vernon Jarboe, the attorney for Richard and Angela Britt, who were formerly interested parties to the eminent domain proceeding. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's award, holding that the district court lacked statutory authority to award fees to Jarboe. Remanded with directions to enter an order distributing the entire amount of the award in favor of Armendariz. View "Miller v. FW Commercial Props. " on Justia Law

Homeowners sued Contractor for, inter alia, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and fraudulent concealment, claiming that Contractor negligently failed to perform contractually required work. The district court granted summary judgment in Contractor's favor on all claims. As to the negligence allegations of interest in this appeal, the district court held (1) the economic loss doctrine prevented Homeowners from bringing a tort action under circumstances governed by contract, and (2) the economic loss doctrine supplied an additional bar to Homeonwers' fraud claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal to decide whether the economic loss doctrine barred any negligence claims. The Court reversed, holding that the doctrine should not apply in this case where (1) existing caselaw establishes that homeowners' claims against residential contractors may be asserted in tort, contract, or both, depending on the nature of the duty giving rise to each claim; and (2) rationales upholding the economic loss doctrine do not support its adoption for disputes between homeowners and their contractors. Remanded. View "David v. Hett" on Justia Law

Lester Dean was the sole and managing member of Glacier Development Company, LLC, which owned property that the Kansas DOT (KDOT) took for highway purposes. KDOT's eminent domain petition did not individually name Dean as a defendant or allege that he personally owned any of the property, but certain attorneys filed an entry of appearance declaring the defendants to be Glacier and Dean. After court-appointed appraisers awarded Glacier $2.19 million for the property, a jury verdict concluded that the property's value was $800,000. The district court ordered that judgment was awarded "against the Defendants." Dean filed a motion requesting his name be removed from the judgment because he did not own the subject property in his personal capacity. The district court denied the motion. At issue on appeal was whether the district court had the authority to adjudge Dean personally liable to KDOT for the amount of the appraisers' award paid out to Glacier that exceeded the compensation finally awarded on appeal. The Supreme Court found that it did not and reversed, holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to make the findings necessary to hold Dean personally liable for an LLC debt. View "Miller v. Glacier Dev. Co." on Justia Law

Property owners appealed a special tax assessment the Board of County Commissioners levied against real property for cleanup costs the County claimed it incurred while removing dangerous structures and unsightly conditions on that property. The district court found subject matter jurisdiction lacking and granted the County's summary judgment motion. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the property owners' claims could be brought on direct review under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-907(a), which provides injunctive relief against an illegal levy or enforcement of any tax, charge, or assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed and in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the property owners satisfied the jurisdictional burdens under section 60-907(a) on two of its three issues; and (2) because the district court went beyond the jurisdiction question and found for the County on the merits and the court of appeals stopped short of considering the merits of any claims when it found the entire case was jurisdictionally barred, the court of appeals erred in part in its jurisdictional ruling. Remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the remaining claims. View "Barnes v. Board of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Landowners owned property near an airport that was zoned as agricultural. Landowners filed an application with the City to classify their property as planned single-family residential and to approve a preliminary plat for a subdivision. Initially, the rezoning was approved, but after the County brought suit, Landowners initiated a new application to rezone the property and, following the directives of Kan. Stat. Ann. 3-307e, to seek the approval of the County once the City approved the rezoning and the plat. The County denied Landowners' rezoning application. On review, the district court held that the City was the zoning authority and the County took a quasi-judicial role in reviewing the City's rezoning decision. The court concluded that the County had failed to overcome the presumption that the City's decision was reasonable and upheld the City's decision to approve the rezoning. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding the district court's ruling was erroneous because section 3-307e allows the County to reach an independent determination that a court must presume to be reasonable, and to successfully challenge the County's action under section 3-307e, a landowner must prove that the County's action was unlawful or unreasonable. Remanded. View "143rd Street Investors v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs " on Justia Law