Seibel v. Seibel

510 P.3d 1203 (Table)

Ronald G. SEIBEL, Appellant,

v.Donald D. SEIBEL and Judy Seibel, Appellees.

No. 123,667

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Opinion filed June 10, 2022.

Terry L. Malone, of Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, L.L.P., of Wichita, for appellant.

Derek S. Casey, of Triplett Woolf Garretson, LLC, of Wichita, for appellees.

Before Atcheson, P.J., Powell and Warner, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is a land-partition dispute between two brothers, Ronald and Donald Seibel. Ronald sued to partition land they commonly owned, and court-appointed commissioners divided it into two equal tracts. Over Donald's objection, Ronald asked the district court to adopt this division, assuring the court that the commissioners had divided the land equally and that either party should accept either tract. The district court granted Ronald's request, though it gave Donald the first chance to select a tract. After Donald made his selection, Ronald changed his mind and indicated he wanted the tract Donald had chosen. The district court rejected Ronald's attempt to reopen the issue and assigned him the remaining tract.

Ronald now appeals, arguing the district court did not comply with the partition statute. But we do not reach his statutory arguments because principles of equity and Kansas law prohibit Ronald from challenging the district court's ruling when he advocated for—and induced the court to reach—that outcome. We thus affirm the district court's partition decision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ronald and Donald, who both reside outside of Kansas, co-owned five parcels of land in Butler County as tenants in common. In 2019, Ronald filed a lawsuit against Donald and Donald's wife, Judy Seibel (a/k/a Judy Ishikura), asking the court to partition—or divide—the property equally between them. The district court entered an order of partition and appointed three commissioners to determine whether the five parcels could be divided according to the brothers' undivided one-half interests "without manifest injury or otherwise being impracticable." That is, the commissioners were to determine whether a physical partition—also called a partition in kind—was possible, or whether it would be necessary to sell the property and divide the proceeds.

The commissioners determined that they could partition the land in kind by dividing it into two "reasonably equal" tracts: Tract 1 (containing parcels 1, 2, and 5) and Tract 2 (containing parcels 3 and 4). The commissioners explained that this division accounted for the brothers' one-half interests and would not cause manifest injury or be impracticable.

Ronald moved to confirm the commissioners' report, asking the district court to follow their division. Donald, however, disagreed with the report and filed exceptions, asking the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether a partition in kind was possible and to ultimately reject the commissioners' recommendation. According to Donald, the commissioners' division was not equal and, because of the distinct characteristics of each parcel, a partition by sale was necessary.

The district court held a hearing on the parties' motions. At the hearing, the district court asked Ronald's attorney whether Ronald was willing to take either tract established by the commissioners' division. His attorney confirmed that, although Ronald preferred one tract, he thought it was "fair that either side could get ... either tract." Ronald's counsel indicated that he was "prepared today to have [the court] enter an order and allocate either party to either of the tracts that the commissioners identified."

Later in the hearing, the court granted Ronald's motion to confirm the report and denied Donald's request for an evidentiary hearing. Then, based on Ronald's representation that the tracts were equal, the court allowed Donald 14 days to select the tract of his preference. Ronald did not object to this procedure at the time. Donald ultimately selected Tract 2.

After the hearing and Donald's selection, the parties could not agree on a journal entry memorializing the court's ruling. Donald thus moved to settle the journal entry, and the district court held another hearing. At this point, it became clear that Ronald was having second thoughts—he was no longer willing to accept either tract and, like his brother, wanted Tract 2. Ronald acknowledged that the tracts had equal values and that the court had already awarded Tract 2 to Donald. But Ronald explained that there was a hunting cabin on Tract 2 that he wanted even though it had little economic value. Thus, Ronald requested an "opportunity to make an argument that he should be allowed to have" that tract. Ronald later reiterated that he wanted the opportunity "to make an equitable argument" as to why he should receive Tract 2.

The district court explained that it had ruled on the issue at the hearing on Ronald's motion to confirm the commissioners' report several months earlier. And the court confirmed that its ruling on that motion was based on Ronald's representation that he would accept either tract. Thus, the court entered a journal entry partitioning the land and giving Tract 1 to Ronald and Tract 2 to Donald. Ronald now appeals.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal, Ronald asserts the district court failed to follow the procedures of Kansas' partition statute, K.S.A. 60-1003, when it divided the tracts between the brothers. In particular, Ronald asserts that the district court should have required the commissioners to determine which brother should receive which tract. And he asserts that the court erred when it awarded the tracts without an evidentiary hearing.

Donald responds on multiple fronts. He contends this court lacks jurisdiction because Ronald received the relief he sought below—an order confirming the commissioners' report—and thus has not suffered an injury from the challenged conduct. Donald thus asserts that Ronald has no standing to bring this appeal. During oral argument, Donald expanded this claim somewhat by asserting that Ronald should be estopped from making the arguments he now raises, as the district court followed Ronald's proposed course and granted his motion to confirm the report. Finally, Donald argues the district court's actions were consistent with the partition statute.

Because standing is a jurisdictional requirement, we must first consider this threshold issue before turning to the parties' other claims. See Gannon v. State , 298 Kan. 1107, 1122, 319 P.3d 1196 (2014). Under the Kansas Constitution, courts can only hear justiciable cases and controversies. State ex rel. Morrison v. Sebelius , 285 Kan. 875, 896, 179 P.3d 366 (2008). As part of this requirement, a party seeking relief must have standing—that is, the party must have a " ‘right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or a right.’ " In re Adoption of T.M.M.H. , 307 Kan. 902, 908, 416 P.3d 999 (2018) (quoting KNEA v. State , 305 Kan. 739, 746, 387 P.3d 795 [2017] ). Usually, this means that the person must have suffered a "cognizable injury" that can be remedied in some fashion by the courts. KNEA , 305 Kat. at 746. In other words, " ‘a party must establish a personal interest in a court's decision and that he or she personally suffers some actual or threatened injury as a result of the challenged conduct.’ " Gannon , 298 Kan. at 1123. Because a party's standing or lack of standing concerns the courts' jurisdiction to hear the case, it may be considered at any time. In re L.L. , 315 Kan. 386, 390, 508 P.3d 1278 (2022).

Applying these principles here, we easily conclude that Ronald has standing to bring this appeal. It is true that the district court granted Ronald's motion to confirm the commissioners' report, and he did not object to any of the district court's actions or rulings at the hearing on that motion—presumably because the district court ruled in his favor. But after that hearing, Ronald changed his mind and indicated he preferred Tract 2. This change led to a second hearing where Ronald explained he was no longer willing to let Donald make the first selection and requested further proceedings. The district court rejected this request, ruling in essence that Ronald would not get the tract he then requested. This is the order Ronald challenges on appeal.

But while Ronald has standing to present his claims, there are equitable reasons why we do not reach their merits. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Ronald had a chance to express which tract he preferred or to acquiesce to Donald's request for an evidentiary hearing. But he did not. Instead, he asked the district court to adopt the commissioners' recommendation and indicated he would accept either tract. He effectively invited the court to permit Donald to make the first selection and now assails the court for doing just that.

Kansas courts have long recognized at least two equitable doctrines that prevent a party from taking the path Ronald has here—leading the court down one path and then challenging that path in later proceedings.

• First , the doctrine of judicial estoppel " ‘prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.’ " State v. Hargrove , 48 Kan. App. 2d 522, 549, 293 P.3d 787 (2013) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine , 532 U.S. 742, 749, 121 S. Ct. 1808, 149 L. Ed. 2d 968 [2001] ). Under this principle, a party cannot take one position, inducing a court to make a certain ruling, and then take a contrary position later in the same case " ‘simply because his interests have changed.’ " New Hampshire , 532 U.S.

...