Kansas Courts hears legal battle over family farm among others

Gavel(MGN Image)
Published: Jul. 9, 2020 at 12:29 PM CDT
Email this link
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn

TOPEKA, Kan. (WIBW) - The Kansas Court of Appeals will hear a legal battle over a family farm among others.

The Kansas Court of Appeals says it will hear appeals via videoconference on Tuesday, July 14, which will be live-streamed on its YouTube page.

The Court says presiding judge for this docket will be Judge Tom Malone joined by Senior Judges Patrick McAnany and James Burgess.

According to Administrative Order 2020-PR-076, the Kansas Supreme Court has ordered all hearings to be conducted remotely if possible.

The Kansas Court of Appeals says it will hear the following cases on its July 14 docket:

  • Appeal No. 120,061: Lanier Trucking Inc. and Steven Lanier v. James J. Long
    • The Court says it will hear a Sedgwick County appeal involving a dispute between a trucking company, one of its owners and an attorney who represented the company. The owner and the company say they unsuccessfully sued the attorney in the Sedgwick County District Court for breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. They now say the district court erred by holding they had not provided sufficient evidence to show the attorney owed the owner an independent fiduciary duty. They also say the district court erred by holding other claims brought against the lawyer was barred by the statute of limitations.
  • Appeal No. 120,868: Estate of Roger D. Seematter, Colleen E. Seematter, Executor, and Colleen E. Seematter v. Delmar Seematter and Seematter Farms Inc.
    • The Court says it will hear a Marshall County case involving a dispute over a family farm. Roger Seematter and his wife Colleen sued Roger’s father, Delmar, for promissory estoppel, which alleged Delmar broke an oral promise to grant Roger all of Delmar’s land and farming corporation in return for Roger staying to work on the farm after graduating from high school. Roger and Colleen say Roger’s reliance on that promise kept him from chasing another career. After Roger died during litigation, Delmar says he counterclaimed against Colleen, looking to enforce an alleged right to repurchase four acres of the land Delmar had granted the couple. The Marshall County District Court says it granted summary judgment to Delmar on the promissory-estoppel claim, which found Colleen could not produce admissible evidence showing Delmar made the promise, as well as on his counterclaim, finding the deed reserved Delmar the right to repurchase the property for fair market value in the case of the death or divorce of either Colleen or Roger. On appeal, Colleen says the court erred in granting both of Delmar’s motions for summary judgment.
  • Appeal No. 120,930: In the Matter of the Marriage of Lindsay Madrigal and Daniel Madrigal
    • The Court says it will hear a Sedgwick County case involving an order modifying child support in a divorce. Daniel Madrigal says the Sedgwick Co. District Court’s order modifying the amount of child support paid to his ex-wife Lindsey Madrigal and imposing sanction on him under the Kansas Child Support Guidelines for not notifying Lindsey his income had materially increased. Daniel says the sanction should have been limited to the earliest date on which he could have known his income had increased, which was when he filed his yearly taxes due to being self-employed. Daniel says the sanction claim was untimely under either the 1-year statute of limitations or the legal doctrine of laches. Daniel also says the district court’s decision to increase his child-support payments, starting that the court failed to justify its reliance on an extended income formula and failed to consider contributions he made the children’s direct expenses.
  • Appeal No. 121,912: State of Kansas v. Beth Janice Merrill
    • The Court says it will hear a Johnson County interlocutory appeal involving a dispute about whether the Johnson County District Court properly suppressed blood test results. Officers say they arrested Merrill following an accident, Merrill refused a breathalyzer, so officers obtained a search warrant and took Merrill to a nurse practitioner who took a blood sample. The State says it charged Merrill with two counts of aggravated battery while driving under the influence. The district court says it granted Merrill’s motion to suppress statements she made to the nurse and the blood test results, finding the officers repeatedly violated Merrill’s constitutional rights during her time in custody. On appeal, the State says the blood sample evidence should not have been suppressed due to the practitioner’s questions not amounting to police interrogation, and even if it did, the appropriate remedy would be to suppress only the statements. Merrill says the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal due to the suppression order not substantially impairing the State’s ability to prosecute the case and suppression of the blood test results was an appropriate remedy.

Copyright 2020 WIBW. All rights reserved.

Latest News

Latest News