Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 270 P.3d 1074

NPIC, the garnishee, appeals from district court rulings in a garnishment action to collect consent judgments Americold reached with plaintiffs in earlier tort actions.
The underlying judgments were against Americold (not a party to the garnishment), arising from a fire and related coverage disputes with excess insurers, including NPIC.
The Kansas Supreme Court’s Americold I remand directed the district court to examine reasonableness and good faith of the settlement, not to adjudicate the underlying torts, and to determine whether the consent judgments could be enforceable against NPIC.
The district court held that the remand stayed or prohibited enforcement and that NPIC was liable for the consent judgments, leading to journal entries allocating amounts owed to each plaintiff.
NPIC contends the consent judgments became dormant and extinguished under K.S.A. 60-2403/2404, depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to garnish NPIC.
This appeal centers on whether the consent judgments were extinguished and whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter judgment against NPIC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the consent judgments against Americold become dormant/extinguished under 60-2403/2404?	NPIC’s dormancy extinguished judgments; no judgment debt remained to garnishee.	Dormancy tolling and remand stayed enforcement; judgments could still be enforceable or revived.	Yes; the consent judgments were extinguished, depriving subject matter jurisdiction to garnish NPIC.
Does a remand order toll or prohibit enforcement under 60-2403(c)?	Remand did not toll each judgment’s dormancy period; enforcement could proceed against other assets.	Remand prohibited enforcement and thus tolled the dormancy period.	Remand did not toll enforcement for purposes of dormancy; tolling did not preserve enforceability against NPIC.
Was NPIC’s dormancy defense properly preserved and reviewable on appeal?	Notice of appeal and briefing encompassed the relevant judgments and post-remand orders.	Dormancy was not pled/preserved in pretrial orders and notice; jurisdiction lapses.	The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a dormancy defense on appeal; the defense was properly treated as extinguished.

Hess v. St. Francis Regional Med. Ctr., 254 Kan. 715 (1994) (jurisdiction over rulings tied to notice of appeal; unlimited review of legal questions)
Alliance Mutual Casualty Co. v. Boston Insurance Co., 196 Kan. 323 (1966) (liberal construction to identify appellate jurisdiction when not all parties named)
DeKalb Swine Breeders, Inc. v. Woolwine Supply Co., 248 Kan. 673 (1991) (garnishment does not toll dormancy time; explains dormancy mechanics)
Clark v. Glazer, 4 Kan. App. 2d 658 (1980) (recites that revival statutes are strict; dormancy differs from ordinary limitations)
Gates v. Goodyear, 37 Kan. App. 2d 623 (2007) (noting notice-of-appeal sufficiency and jurisdictional limits when deficient)
In re Estate of Broderick, 286 Kan. 1071 (2008) (appellate estoppel and related procedural considerations in estates)