310 P.3d 1065
Kan. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bunge Milling owns four tracts totaling ~58.3 acres outside the City of Atchison.
- Bunge hired Midland to conduct a boundary survey; the survey was completed May 5, 2006 by Troy Hayes of Midland.
- Midland filed the boundary survey with the Atchison County Register of Deeds on May 12, 2006, without written authorization from Bunge.
- Hayes charged a $20 filing fee and included it on Midland’s invoice to Bunge; Bunge claims it was unaware of the filing.
- The City initiated unilateral annexation proceedings in 2011, relying on Midland’s filed survey to satisfy the “platted” requirement under K.S.A. 12-519(e).
- The district court found Midland’s filing was not attributable to Bunge and that Bunge did not own a “plat” filed by the owner, thus the annexation authority under K.S.A. 12-520(a)(1) did not exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Midland acted as Bunge’s agent for filing the survey. | City: Midland acted as Bunge’s agent; filing satisfies ‘by the owner.’ | Bunge: no agency; Midland filed independently and without authority. | Midland was not Bunge’s agent for filing. |
| If no agency, whether the survey was filed by the owner, satisfying platted requirement. | City contends owner filing requirement is met via agency; otherwise annexation invalid. | Bunge argues no agency means filing cannot be attributed to owner. | Survey not filed by the owner; not platted under 12-519(e); annexation invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbara Oil Co. v. Kansas Gas Supply Corp., 250 Kan. 438 (1992) (implied agency test; agency inferred from conduct)
- Highland Lumber Co., Inc. v. Hudson, 219 Kan. 366 (1976) (no implied agency; factual record insufficient)
- Bichelmeyer Meats v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 30 Kan. App. 2d 458 (2001) (burden to prove agency with clear and convincing evidence)
- Town Center Shopping Center v. Premier Mortgage Funding, Inc., 37 Kan. App. 2d 1 (2006) (unlimited review of statutory interpretation; agency causation context)
- Foley Co. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 28 Kan. App. 2d 219 (2000) (ratification concept; knowledge of unauthorized act required)