Today From The Kansas Supreme Court

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.

Appeal Nos. 126,718 and 126,719 archived oral argument

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.

Appeal No. 127,534: State of Kansas vs. Stanton Holt

Appeal No. 127,534 archived oral argument

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).

Case No. 128,150 archived oral argument

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.

Case No. 128,447 archived oral argument

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.

Office of Judicial Administration

301 SW 10th Avenue

Topeka, KS 66612-1507

785-296-2256

kscourts.gov