Garcia v. Ball, 303 Kan. 560

Background

Garcia retained attorney Ball in a probation-revocation matter, stipulated to violation, and the court revoked probation and imposed Garcia's original 9‑month prison term.
The journal entry erroneously ordered 12 months of postrelease supervision after the 9‑month term; KDOC notified the court and Ball of the error but the entry was not corrected at that time.
While subject to that erroneous postrelease supervision, Garcia committed a new burglary; he received a 13‑month sentence and was required to serve the remaining postrelease supervision in prison, extending his incarceration.
Garcia filed a pro se motion; a Journal Entry Nunc Pro Tunc correcting the illegal postrelease supervision was entered February 4, 2011, and Garcia was released shortly thereafter.
Garcia sued Ball for legal malpractice (filed May 5, 2011). Ball failed to timely answer; Garcia obtained a default judgment. The district court later set aside the default judgment; the court then dismissed Garcia’s malpractice claim under the exoneration rule. The Court of Appeals reinstated the default judgment; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
The Kansas Supreme Court held the district court did not abuse discretion in setting aside the default judgment under K.S.A. 60‑260(b)(6), and ruled that Garcia’s malpractice claim was not barred by an actual‑innocence requirement and accrued when the nunc pro tunc order was entered; the dismissal was reversed and the case remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion in setting aside default judgment	Garcia: Ball offered no evidence of excusable neglect; default should stand	Ball: Relief warranted under K.S.A. 60‑260(b)(1) and (b)(6); meritorious defenses exist and law disfavors defaults	Court: No abuse of discretion; relief proper under K.S.A. 60‑260(b)(6) (catch‑all)
Whether K.S.A. 60‑260(b)(6) may be invoked when (b)(1) also alleged	Garcia: Movant must show excusable neglect; (b)(6) cannot substitute for (b)(1)	Ball: May seek multiple grounds; (b)(6) not barred here and court relied on it	Court: (b)(6) applies; party may invoke multiple grounds so long as not circumventing 1‑year limits
Whether exoneration rule requires proof of actual innocence before suing for criminal‑defense malpractice	Garcia: Exoneration satisfied by nunc pro tunc correcting illegal sentence; actual innocence not required	Ball: Exoneration rule (as in Canaan) requires postconviction relief and may implicate innocence issues	Court: Actual innocence not required; plaintiff must obtain post‑sentencing relief (exoneration) — Garcia satisfied this when nunc pro tunc entered
When malpractice cause of action accrues for statute of limitations	Garcia: Accrual occurs when nunc pro tunc order corrected illegal sentence (Feb 4, 2011)	Ball: Statute of limitations defense; claim time‑barred	Court: Accrual occurs upon post‑sentencing relief; Garcia filed within the 2‑year limitations period

Key Cases Cited

Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116 (2003) (adopted exoneration rule requiring postconviction relief before malpractice suit against criminal counsel)
Mashaney v. Board of Indigents' Defense Services, 355 P.3d 667 (Kan. 2015) (exoneration does not require proof of actual innocence; accrual upon post‑conviction relief)
Montez v. Tonkawa Village Apartments, 215 Kan. 59 (1974) (default judgments disfavored; Montez factors guide reopening defaults)
In re Estate of Newland, 240 Kan. 249 (1986) (K.S.A. 60‑260(b)(6) to be liberally construed to balance finality and justice)
Reliance Insurance Companies v. Thompson‑Hayward Chemical Co., 214 Kan. 110 (1974) (recognizing that default judgments are not favored by law)
Jenkins v. Arnold, 223 Kan. 298 (1978) (existence of meritorious defense is a factor in setting aside defaults)
In re Marriage of Leedy, 279 Kan. 311 (2005) (discussing limits on using catch‑all provision to circumvent time limits in K.S.A. 60‑260(b))