Appeal No. 125,999: Sarah E. Tharrett, as successor trustee of the Roxine Poznich revocable trust v. David T. Everett
Bourbon County: (Petition for Review, Cross Petition for Review) David T. Everett appeals the district court’s final order granting declaratory relief, which authorized the final distribution of a trust and ordered him to surrender $4,000 in attorney fees from his distribution to the trustee, Sarah E. Tharrett. On appeal, Everett raises several procedural challenges to the proceedings in district court and argues the court abused its discretion in granting Tharrett’s motion for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals stated that the record reflects that Everett, after being sent the final distribution check from the trust, which was calculated in accordance with the district court’s final order, accepted the payment and negotiated the distribution check. The Court of Appeals held that because Everett voluntarily accepted the benefits of the district court’s order, he cannot now take the inconsistent position of appealing from it. Because Everett accepted the district court’s judgment, the Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction over his appeal and dismissed it. The issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address Everett’s argument that acquiescence to a void judgment is not possible; 2) the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address Everett’s argument that acquiescence was not properly preserved below; 3) the Court of Appeals erred when it rejected Everett’s self-protection argument; and 4) the Court of Appeals erred when it held that no issue Everett raised was separable from issues he alleged concerning acquiescence.
Appeal No. 126,288: State of Kansas v. Brenton S. Cook
Saline County: (Criminal Appeal) In 2006, a jury convicted Cook of first-degree murder, and he received a hard 25 life sentence. Cook’s convictions were affirmed on appeal and three subsequent motions under K.S.A. 60-1507 were denied. In this motion to correct illegal sentence, he challenges his sentence because his trial violated the merger doctrine, multiplicity, and double jeopardy statutes. The district court immediately denied Cook’s motion. The issue on review is whether the district court erred in immediately denying Cook’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. |