Thoele v. Lee

1

Jeffrey Thoele, Appellant, v. Scott Lee, et al., Appellees.

No. 125,518

Court of Appeals of Kansas

September 15, 2023

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Appeal from Miami District Court; STEVEN C. MONTGOMERY, JUDGE.

Geri L. Hartley, of Hartley Law Group, LLC, of Paola, for appellant.

Ian M Bartalos and Kevin D. Looby, of McCausland Barrett &amp Bartalos P.C., of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellee Lucas Price.

Before SCHROEDER, P.J., MALONE, J., and MARY E. CHRISTOPHER, S.J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Thoele appeals the Miami County District Court's dismissal of his contract-related claims against Lucas Price. Thoele argues that the district court applied an improper legal standard when ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss, that the district court incorrectly interpreted the land lease, and that the district court erred in concluding that Thoele possessed no enforceable lease after December 31 2018. However, the written lease contained a specific term under which the lease expired on December 31, 2018. It was uncontested that a writing did not exist to extend the lease. The district court found no oral contracts existed between the parties. Under K.S.A. 582506 and K.S.A. 58-2502, the assent of the landlord is required for the creation of a valid holdover tenancy. Under these circumstances, we find the district court properly granted dismissal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Most of the relevant facts are undisputed. Thoele entered into a farm lease with Carol Heald on January 10, 2018. According to its terms, the lease authorized Thoele to enter a 40-acre field on Heald's property at 39485 New Lancaster Road in LaCygne for the purpose of maintaining and harvesting a hay crop. The lease began on January 10, 2018-when the agreement was signed by both parties-and terminated on December 31, 2018, though the parties could extend the lease by written agreement with the mutual consent of both parties. The lease required Thoele to pay Heald rent of $1,600 by January 31, 2018, and imposed certain restrictions on Thoele's access to the property. Potentially relevant to this appeal, Thoele was required to fertilize the hay field by April 30, 2018, and to remove the hay from the property by September 15, 2018. Thoele was also required to notify Heald each time he planned to enter the property.

Thoele made the requisite rent payment in January 2018. Thoele alleged that he "acted as the tenant for the 2018 hay season and had no concerns about the enjoyment of his rights under the lease." Presumably, this means Thoele fertilized and harvested a hay crop on the property in 2018 under the terms of the lease. Scott Heald (Carol's son who had a financial power-of-attorney over Carol's affairs) stated that, to his knowledge, Thoele complied with the terms of the lease in 2018.

In his petition, Thoele did not allege that he and Heald negotiated a written extension of the lease agreement for 2019. Thoele presented no evidence to support such an extension and admits on appeal that he had no written lease extension. Throughout the case, Thoele has variously contended that he negotiated an oral agreement with Heald for continued use of the land and that he had a holdover lease by statute. In support of both theories, Thoele alleged that he fertilized the hay field in late March 2019. He presented no evidence, however, that he informed either Heald or Price that he was entering the land to fertilize the hay field. Thoele also failed to assert that he paid Heald rent for 2019. Rather, Thoele's offer to pay Price $1,600 in July 2019 for the 2019 rent is circumstantial evidence that he failed to pay Heald in January. Without admitting his failure to pay Heald, Thoele essentially concedes the fact by arguing that Heald failed to provide notice of termination for nonpayment of rent under K.S.A. 58-2507.

Thoele alleges that he became aware in January 2019 that Heald had listed her property, which included the leased 40-acre pasture, for sale. Thoele contacted the listing real estate agency to request the listing agent to inform any prospective buyers of his lease interest. While Thoele did not speak directly to the seller's agent, Cathy Pemberton, he spoke to Steve Cutshaw, who reportedly conveyed Thoele's concerns to Pemberton. Cutshaw and Pemberton dispute the information conveyed in their conversations. But, for purposes of this appeal, this court must accept the version of the facts that most benefits Thoele, the nonmoving party. According to Cutshaw, he told Pemberton about Thoele's lease, and Pemberton acknowledged the lease. Cutshaw later reminded Pemberton about the lease. Pemberton never told Cutshaw that the lease had expired.

Heald sold her property, including the 40-acre hay field to Price in mid-February 2019. The closing occurred on May 22, 2019. The sale contract contains a disclosure from Heald about a leasehold interest held by Thoele to harvest the hay crop and provided a contact number for Thoele. However, the disclosure stated that the leasehold interest "shall end on or before December 31, 2018".

In March-between Price's purchase of the property and the closing-Thoele hired Beachner Grain, Inc., to spray the hay field with fertilizer. Thoele alleged that he prepared the field using customary practices but did not detail the work conducted, other than fertilization.

When the hay became mature in July 2019 (after he had taken possession of the property), new owner Price hired Scott Lee to cut and bale the hay. On July 13, when Lee returned to Price's property to move some equipment to another field, he discovered Thoele had loaded most of the bales onto trailers and was preparing to leave the property. Lee confronted Thoele and called the sheriff's department. Thoele claimed a right to the hay under a lease. Price arrived at the property and disputed Thoele's leasehold interest. Because possession of the hay was disputed, the responding deputies permitted Thoele to take the 177 bales he had loaded. Price communicated through the deputy that he did not want Thoele to return to his property.

Thoele contacted Tucker Stewart, an attorney with the Kansas Livestock Association, for advice about his leasehold interest. After speaking with the Miami County Attorney, a detective with the Miami County Sheriff's Department, and Price, Stewart advised Thoele to protect his interest and remove the remaining hay bales. On July 25, Thoele returned to the pasture and loaded the remaining 49 bales of hay. At about the same time, Price received a letter from Stewart, advising Price of Thoele's position that he continued to have a valid oral farm lease. Stewart tendered a check from Thoele in the amount of $1,600 to Price for rent. Price never cashed the check. After Thoele removed the remaining hay bales, Price moved cattle onto the 40-acre section of his property.

Related to the removal of the hay bales, the State charged Thoele with two counts of felony theft, criminal damage to property, and criminal trespass. Thoele ultimately entered into a diversion agreement to avoid criminal prosecution.

Before Thoele entered into the diversion agreement, he filed suit against Price and several other defendants, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with a contract or business relationship. He also claimed punitive damages. Each of the defendants filed answers and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Four days after receipt of Thoele's responses to the motion to dismiss, the district court held a hearing. The court entertained arguments from the defendants, and Thoele responded. Thoele voluntarily dismissed his claim for punitive damages as premature. The court granted the motions to dismiss the remaining claims against all defendants, concluding that Thoele had no valid lease in 2019. Approximately a week later, the court filed its journal entry of dismissal, concluding that the lease was controlled by the terms of the written lease, which terminated on December 31, 2018.

Thoele moved to reconsider the dismissal, arguing he possessed a holdover tenancy by statute that Price failed to terminate properly. Price contested Thoele's motion to reconsider.

On July 28, 2022, Thoele filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court's order of dismissal. However, the district court had not yet ruled on Thoele's motion to reconsider. The district court denied Thoele's motion to reconsider on November 14, 2022. The record contains no additional notice of appeal.

Thoele's failure to file a notice of appeal from the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider does not deprive the court of appellate jurisdiction. The appeal ceased to be interlocutory when the district court ruled on the motion to reconsider. See Hundley v. Pfuetze, 18 Kan.App.2d 755, 757, 858 P.2d 1244, rev. denied 253 Kan. 858 (1993). This court, however, lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's ruling on the motion to reconsider because Thoele failed to file another notice of appeal from that ruling. See Ponds v. State, 56 Kan.App.2d 743, 754, 437 P.3d 85 (2019).

ANALYSIS

Did the district court err in dismissing Thoele's claims as a matter of law?

Thoele alleged three causes of action in his petition, all of which depended on the existence of a valid contract. The district court dismissed these claims, concluding as a matter of law that Thoele did not have a valid contract after December 31 2018, and lacked any contractual relationship with any of the named defendants. Thoele challenges the district court's dismissal of his claims, alleging that the district court improperly applied the governing legal standard when addressing the...