November, 2024
Kansas Supreme Court
All opinion digests are available on the KBA website at www.ksbar.org/digests. If you do not have access to the KBA members-only site, or if your email address or other contact information has changed, please contact member and communication services at info@ksbar.org or at 785-234-5696. For the full text of opinions, access the courts' website at https://kscourts.gov.
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN RE JUNE R. CROW-JOHNSON NO. 127,055 — AUGUST 2, 2024
FACTS: A hearing panel for the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found that Crow-Johnson violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence); 1.4(a) (communication); 1.15(a) (safekeeping property); 1.16 (declining or terminating representation); 3.3 (candor); 3.4(c) disobeying an obligation of the tribunal); 8.1(b) (disciplinary matters); 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); Supreme Court Rule 206(o) (attorney registration); and Supreme Court Rule 310 (duty to assist). These issues arose in part after Crow-Johnson accepted an appointment as trustee for a client she represented with her prior firm, then abandoned her duties as trustee for several years. Crow-Johnson also prepared tax returns for Topeka Bar Association for several years through her employment, but when the firm disbanded, she failed to prepare or file tax returns for several years. Crow-Johnson failed to respond to communications by the disciplinary office and failed to appear at a hearing on the formal complaint. The hearing panel ultimately recommended she be disbarred.
HELD: There was clear and convincing evidence to support the hearing panels findings and conclusions of Crow-Johnson's misconduct. Along with these findings, the court considered Crow-Johnson's failure to appear at oral arguments warranted disbarment.
ORDER OF DISCHARGE FROM PROBATION IN RE FORREST A. LOWRY NO. 125,160 — AUGUST 27, 2024
FACTS: The Kansas Supreme Court suspended Lowry's law license for 90 days in 2022, stayed pending the successful completion of a 3-year probation term that began on January 21, 2021. Lowry requested to be discharged from probation on August 7,2024, and the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator did not object.
HELD: The Court noted the ODA's response and granted Lowry's motion, fully discharging him from probation and closing the disciplinary proceeding.
CIVIL
JURISDICTION BENCHMARK PROPERTY REMODELING, LLC V. GRANDMOTHERS, INC., ET AL. JUDGMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED, JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED NO. 124,160 — AUGUST 9, 2024
FACTS: In August 2018, Benchmark Property Remodeling, LLC, and the Kansas Department of Revenue finalized quotes for remodeling work to be completed on a building KDOR leased from Grandmothers, Inc. — which was owned by Robert Zibell. KDOR and Grandmothers subsequently amended their lease to incorporate the anticipated cost of the remodeling work, with KDOR agreeing to pay Grandmothers once the work was completed. Benchmark and Grandmothers, however, never entered a written contract for the remodeling work and Grandmothers was not required to pay Benchmark under the amended lease with KDOR. After Benchmark completed the work, they submitted invoices to Grandmothers and KDOR. Although KDOR paid Grandmothers the full amount of the quoted work, Grandmothers and Zibell only remitted a partial payment to Benchmark and their subcontractors. Benchmark sued, raising claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Kansas Fairness in Private and Public Construction Acts, conversion, foreclosure of mechanic's lien, and tortious interference with contract against several defendants including Grandmothers, Zibell, and KDOR. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the claims against KDOR and partial summary judgment for some of the claims against Grandmothers. Benchmark moved to dismiss its remaining claims without prejudice, so that the adverse rulings would become immediately appealable as a final judgment. On appeal, a Court of Appeals panel determined it had appellate jurisdiction and reversed the district court's entry of judgment on the pleadings to KDOR and the entry of partial summary judgment as to Grandmothers. Grandmothers and Zibell petitioned for review.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the district court's ruling was a final appealable order; and (2) whether the partial summary judgment ruling was proper
HELD: (1) The district court's ruling was a final judgment for the purposes of appeal because there were no remaining claims left for the district court to consider. Benchmarks voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the remaining claims cleared the way for the district courts partial summary judgment ruling to become final. (2) Based on the uncontroverted facts presented below viewed in the light most favorable to Benchmark, Grandmothers' actions supported a finding that a contract existed between Benchmark and Grandmothers for the remodeling work. Thus, there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of an oral contract and its terms. The Kansas Supreme Court determined the district court erred by resolving the dispute on summary judgment.
STATUTES: K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-254(b), -518, -2102(a)(4); K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-254(b), -2102(a)(4)
WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS IN RE ROBERT WILLIAM DOELZ SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT - AFFIRMED NO. 125,740 — AUGUST 9, 2024
FACTS: The Kansas Supreme Court reversed Robert William Doelz' conviction for possession of methamphetamine in 2019 after finding that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. State v. Doelz, 309 Kan. 133, 142, 432 P.3d 669 (2019). After the State dismissed the charge on remand, Doelz then petitioned for compensation under K.S.A. 60-5004 for the four years he spent in prison on the reversed conviction. The district court denied cross motions for summary judgment, finding there remained a disputed issue of material fact about why the State dismissed the charges. At a bench trial, Doelz testified he was innocent of the charges because the drugs were not his. The district court granted the States motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding Doelz failed to offer any evidence the charge was dismissed because he did not commit the crime for which he was originally convicted. Doelz directly appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.
ISSUES: (1) Does K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) require a movant to prove a causal connection between a claim of innocence and an ultimate outcome
HELD: (1) Yes, the Legislature intended the statute to compensate only those who are factually innocent, not all defendants whose convictions are reversed on appeal. A claimant under K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) must prove: (1) that he or she did not commit the crime of conviction, (2) that he or she was not an accessory or accomplice to the crime, and (3) that demonstrating the first two requirements "resulted in" either the reversal of a conviction, dismissal of a conviction, or an acquittal upon retrial. Because Doelz offered no evidence to show that the State dismissed the charge because he was factually innocent, he was not entitled to compensation.
STATUTES: K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-5004; K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(A), (C),-5004(1)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TRESPASS; NUISANCE ROSS V. NELSON JUDGMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE PHILLIPS DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED NO. 125,274 — AUGUST 23, 2024
FACTS: Landowners, including Rodney and Tonda Ross, sued a hog farmer, Norman Terry Nelson, alleging that Nelson trespassed on their land by installing pipes in the subsurface of a county road to carry treated pig waste from his facilities to his farmland for use as fertilizer, and that the resulting odors and fly infestations constituted a nuisance. The district court granted summary judgment for Ross on the trespass claim, concluding Nelson needed permission to install the pipelines. A jury later found in Ross' favor on the nuisance claim and awarded damages for both claims, as well as punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Nelson failed to show error in the district court's judgment. Ross v. Nelson, 63 Kan.App.2d 634, 643, 534 P.3d 634 (2023). Nelson petitioned for review on the trespass and nuisance rulings.
ISSUES: (1) Was Ross entitled to summary judgment on the trespass claim; (2) was Nelson entitled to summary judgment on the nuisance claim
HELD: (1) The district court correctly found Ross was entitled to summary judgment on the trespass claim. The Kansas Supreme Court first rejected Nelson's claim that Ross lacked standing to bring a trespass claim relating to a public highway easement. Because Ross owned the land, he retained a private property interest and could sue for trespass. The Court also found Nelson committed trespass as a matter of law because the scope of the public highway easement is limited to public uses that facilitate travel, transportation, and communication, so Nelson's pipelines exceeded the scope of the easement and constituted a trespass because they were for his private and exclusive use. Nelson also had no lawful authority for his use of the easement because Ross gave no permission, and the county lacked the authority to permit a private use of the roads' subsurface. (2) Nelson was not entitled to summary judgment on the nuisance claim. Although the Court found Nelson may have failed to preserve an appeal of his arguments by not moving for judgment as a matter of law at trial, it nonetheless reached the merits of the denial of his summary-judgment motion. Acknowledging that Dill v. Excel Packing Co.,183 Kan. 513, 331 F.2d 539 (1958) addressed nuisance claims in agricultural contexts, the Kansas Supreme Court clarified that the case did not create a...
