Appeal No. 125,999: Sarah E. Tharrett, as Successor Trustee of the Roxine Poznich Revocable Trust v. David T. Everett
Summary calendar. No oral argument.
The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals judgment that dismissed Everett’s appeal due to acquiescence to the Bourbon County District Court judgment. The Court of Appeals held that Everett had acquiesced to the district court’s closure of the trust by accepting his distribution check. The Court of Appeals further held that it did not have jurisdiction to award Tharrett her attorney fees on appeal based on its reading of Kaelter v. Sokol, 301 Kan. 247, 340 P.3d 1210 (2015). On appeal, Everett argued that the district court judgment was void for lack of due process or that an exception to acquiescence doctrine applied. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the Supreme Court held that when a trust beneficiary accepts the distribution awarded to them, they cannot then take an inconsistent position and challenge the amount distributed on appeal. Furthermore, due process violations do not necessarily void a judgment. Due process violations that completely undermine personal jurisdiction void a judgment, but that situation was not present here. No exception to acquiescence applied. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the merits for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court found there was a live controversy as to fees, so it awarded Tharrett $11,320 in attorney fees.
The Leavenworth County District Court terminated Father’s parental rights to two minor children who were adjudicated as children in need of care and remained in state custody for an extended period while Father was incarcerated. The Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds of Father’s unfitness due to incarceration. On review, a majority of the Supreme Court agreed the district court had not erred in terminating Father’s parental rights on this basis. In a decision written by Justice Melissa Standridge, the majority explained that in assessing the likelihood parental unfitness will change in the foreseeable future, the inquiry does not end merely because the underlying condition has a defined endpoint. Rather than simply determining whether the parent will be physically available, the majority held the critical question is whether the parent will be able to care properly for the child in a time frame consistent with the child’s best interests. In dissent, Justices Caleb Stegall and K.J. Wall would find that Father’s parental rights were improperly terminated based on his incarceration since Father had a designated release date and his condition of unfitness was likely to change in the foreseeable future.
This case was argued before the Supreme Court at its April 29, 2025, special session in the Logan Intergenerational Family Education Center in Logan.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Geary County District Court judgment that denied Holt’s motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to K.S.A. 21-2512. Holt was convicted of more than 60 offenses including two counts of first-degree murder following a string of 1993 burglaries. In 2020, Holt motioned for additional testing of blood-stained exhibits. He alleged that new DNA testing techniques could show that the biological material on the exhibits was solely his DNA. However, the district court denied Holt’s motion following an evidentiary hearing because the exhibits had been stored in such a manner that would materially undermine the scientific accuracy of any testing, specifically due to concerns with the chain of evidence, handling of, and the physical condition of the exhibits. In a decision written by Justice Caleb Stegall, a unanimous Court held that additional testing of corrupted exhibits would be inconclusive and any results from additional testing could not be exculpatory, as required by K.S.A. 21-2512(c).
Good engaged in a series of actions from 2021 through 2023 in which his alcohol use played a role. These actions resulted in law enforcement intervention and several criminal convictions. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated. During the course of those proceedings, he sent a series of emails to the disciplinary administrator and other attorneys containing implicit threats of harm and asserting he was suffering from a terminal illness, which was not true. This conduct, in addition to other violations of disciplinary rules, led the Supreme Court to impose a sanction of indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Kansas.
The Supreme Court suspended McDowell indefinitely from the practice of law after finding multiple violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court found that McDowell failed to file a will with the court and upon learning of his omission, proceeded to bully his client into submitting a false affidavit with the court to attempt tardy admission of the will even though that could expose the client to liability. He further engaged in a pattern of conduct to cover up his shortcomings for over four years. This resulted in the client losing approximately $155,000 he would have otherwise inherited from his parents. Furthermore, the client did not pursue a malpractice suit because McDowell did not have malpractice insurance. The Court held that it would consider reinstatement only after McDowell had made full restitution of $155,000 to the client.
Visit our Search Decisions page for published and unpublished decisions from the Kansas Supreme Court and the Kansas Court of Appeals.
One thought on “Today From The Kansas Supreme Court”
Anyone who reads the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion in Tharrett v. Everett carefully will note that even though the court admits that my claim that there was no due process involves the fact that the district court (and both appellate courts for that matter) never saw the entire trust instrument. It is impossible to decide a trust case without having the whole trust instrument.
Here there was no trial, the district court (Andrea Purvis, judge) never received any evidence, but decided the trustee’s claims were true. I was not in default, and this was not a summary judgment. Facts were in dispute. Add in not having the entire trust instrument, and simply put, you couldn’t find a more egregious due process violation in a trust case. It’s so bad it appears it has never happened before, at least it has never been taken up on appeal.
Also, since my claim is under the federal constitution, the Kansas Supreme Court cannot “narrow” the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) where the Court explained the principle that a judgment is void if a court lacks jurisdiction or violates due process. The Kansas Supreme Court is defying the U.S. Supreme Court by trying to eliminate due process option by folding it into personal jurisdiction.
Reading the briefs of the parties will further reveal that most of the rest of this opinion is a snowjob that distorts my claims.
What Tharrett v. Everett stands for is that attorneys can soak a trust for a disproportionally high portion of trust residue without any transparency whatsoever.
Anyone who reads the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion in Tharrett v. Everett carefully will note that even though the court admits that my claim that there was no due process involves the fact that the district court (and both appellate courts for that matter) never saw the entire trust instrument. It is impossible to decide a trust case without having the whole trust instrument.
Here there was no trial, the district court (Andrea Purvis, judge) never received any evidence, but decided the trustee’s claims were true. I was not in default, and this was not a summary judgment. Facts were in dispute. Add in not having the entire trust instrument, and simply put, you couldn’t find a more egregious due process violation in a trust case. It’s so bad it appears it has never happened before, at least it has never been taken up on appeal.
Also, since my claim is under the federal constitution, the Kansas Supreme Court cannot “narrow” the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions in United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) where the Court explained the principle that a judgment is void if a court lacks jurisdiction or violates due process. The Kansas Supreme Court is defying the U.S. Supreme Court by trying to eliminate due process option by folding it into personal jurisdiction.
Reading the briefs of the parties will further reveal that most of the rest of this opinion is a snowjob that distorts my claims.
What Tharrett v. Everett stands for is that attorneys can soak a trust for a disproportionally high portion of trust residue without any transparency whatsoever.