Board of County Commissioners v. City of Park City
260 P.3d 387
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Park City challenged a district court's summary judgment on annexation by Sedgwick County; issue centered on whether the unique circumstances doctrine could salvage an untimely appeal.
- Park City filed postjudgment extensions under K.S.A. 60-259(f) and 60-260(b); district court granted extensions to Aug. 31, then Sept. 4, and one additional day.
- Park City filed its 60-259(f) motion on Sept. 5, 2007, but later abandoned 60-260(b) issues; district court denied the 60-259(f) motion as untimely.
- Even with extensions granted, the 30-day appeal deadline under K.S.A. 60-2103(a) expired; Park City nevertheless filed a notice of appeal.
- Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and questioned the viability of the unique circumstances doctrine in light of Bowles v. Russell.
- Kansas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the unique circumstances doctrine could validly extend a jurisdictional deadline and whether Bowles forecloses its application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unique circumstances doctrine can save an untimely appeal. | Park City: reliance on district court extensions warrants tolling. | Board: doctrine is illegitimate for jurisdictional deadlines; cannot override statute. | No; unique circumstances doctrine cannot save the untimely appeal. |
| Whether Park City’s tolling relied on an impermissible extension under 60-259(f) and 60-206(b). | Extensions were valid and tolled the appeal period. | There was no statutory extension for 60-259(f); 60-206(b) cannot extend time. | No tolling authority; extensions were not authorized for 60-259(f). |
| Effect of Bowles v. Russell on Kansas unique circumstances doctrine. | Doctrine should remain viable in Kansas after Finley. | Bowles bars equitable exceptions to jurisdictional rules. | Bowles controls; doctrine cannot extend jurisdictional deadlines. |
| Whether Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio preserves any nonjurisdictional tolling relevance. | Finley supports narrow, nonjurisdictional tolling. | Finley does not apply to jurisdictional deadlines; Bowles supersedes. | Finley has no relevance to this jurisdictional issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 (U.S. Supreme Court 1962) (recognized unique circumstances to toll jurisdictional deadlines (excusable reliance on court action))
- Thompson v. I.N.S., 375 U.S. 384 (U.S. Supreme Court 1964) (applied Harris to toll deadline based on district court action)
- Schroeder v. Urban, 242 Kan. 710 (Kan. 1988) (early Kansas adoption of unique circumstances doctrine)
- Johnson v. American Cyanamid Co., 243 Kan. 291 (Kan. 1988) (applied doctrine to save an untimely appeal)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (overruled Harris/Thompson line for jurisdictional deadlines; no equitable exceptions)
- Stauber v. Kieser, 810 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1987) (early authority cited for unique circumstances in Kansas)
- Weitz v. Lovelace Health System, Inc., 214 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2000) (narrowed unique circumstances to reasonable reliance on court action under Rule extensions)
- Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio, 285 Kan. 202 (Kan. 2007) (discussed Bowles but addressed nonjurisdictional time limits and tolling)
- Flores Rentals v. Flores, 283 Kan. 476 (Kan. 2007) (jurisdictional limits; cannot entertain outside statutory framework)