378 P.3d 1090
Kan.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Willis Armstrong and Stephanie Prohaska sued Bromley Quarry for trespass and conversion, alleging unauthorized subsurface mining removed 855,500 tons of limestone from their property; suit filed May 20, 2011.
- Bromley Quarry admitted removal of 173,392 tons within the two years before suit but disputed liability for the remaining "disputed rock," claiming it was taken earlier and thus time‑barred.
- Historical survey maps (1992–2010) filed with regulators showed no mining under Armstrong’s land; a 2011 independent survey revealed additional mined-out areas.
- District court granted summary judgment limiting recovery to rock removed after May 20, 2009 (2‑year limitations), excluded two 2012 Alpha survey exhibits, and found Bromley Quarry a good‑faith trespasser (allowing expense deductions); awarded damages for 173,392 tons.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the statute‑of‑limitations ruling, found exclusion of maps erroneous but harmless, reversed the good‑faith finding and awarded enhanced damages ($10/ton) for the admitted two‑year quantity.
- Kansas Supreme Court: reversed summary‑judgment limitation (insufficient record to show injury was reasonably ascertainable), remanded for further proceedings on limitations and admissibility of maps, but affirmed that Bromley Quarry failed to prove good faith and is liable for enhanced damages for the two‑year admitted rock removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did statute of limitations accrue? | Armstrong: fact of injury was not reasonably ascertainable until 2011; summary judgment improper. | Bromley: plaintiffs had long suspicions and means to investigate; claims before May 20, 2009 are time‑barred. | Reversed summary judgment; record inadequate to find injury reasonably ascertainable as a matter of law — remand for further proceedings. |
| Were the 2012 Alpha survey maps admissible? | Maps were relevant to show additional mining during/after 2009 and to quantify disputed rock. | Bromley: underlying 1992 map is outside limitations period and foundation lacking; maps irrelevant. | Court of Appeals: exclusion was error (noted proper foundation); Kansas Supreme Court: admissibility must be reconsidered on remand given unresolved limitations period. |
| Did Bromley Quarry act in good faith (affecting damages measure)? | Armstrong: Bromley acted in bad faith; enhanced‑value damages apply. | Bromley: believed it had right/title and was mistaken; net‑profit damages (expenses deductible). | Affirmed Court of Appeals: Bromley failed to meet burden to prove an honest and reasonable belief in superior title; bad‑faith designation upheld for admitted two‑year removal (enhanced damages). |
| Is continuing trespass tolling limitations? | Armstrong: trespass was continuous, so limitations tolled until trespass complete. | Bromley: limitations ran once injury was reasonably ascertainable. | Not decided on merits; Supreme Court remanded — district court may address preservation and application on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerchberg v. Loney, 223 Kan. 446 (definition of trespass)
- United Proteins, Inc. v. Farmland Industries, Inc., 259 Kan. 725 (intent element of trespass)
- Bomhoff v. Nelnet Loan Services, Inc., 279 Kan. 415 (definition of conversion)
- In re Conservatorship of Huerta, 273 Kan. 97 (conversion damages measure)
- Brinkman v. Empire Gas and Fuel Co., 120 Kan. 602 (hybrid mineral trespass/conversion damages — good‑faith vs. willful trespass)
- Dailey v. Joslin, 172 Kan. 199 (deduction of operating expenses in certain mineral disputes)
- Dexter v. Brake, 46 Kan. App. 2d 1020 (good‑faith/bad‑faith trespass framework for mineral extraction)
- Davidson v. Denning, 259 Kan. 659 (reasonable‑investigation rule for accrual under K.S.A. 60‑513)