Graham v. Herring, 297 Kan. 847

Elizabeth Jones died while pursuing counterclaims against the Grahams; the estate sought substitution.
District court dismissed the action as untimely under K.S.A. 60-225(a)(1) for not moving within a reasonable time.
Initial delays included a seven-month gap between filing the substitution motion and a hearing, and concerns about prejudice were contested.
Court of Appeals reversed, directing a totality-of-the-circumstances test including diligence, prejudice, and merit of the substitute party's claims.
On review, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the need for a totality-of-circumstances analysis and remanded for proper application of the standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prejudice is part of the reasonable-time analysis	Grahams urge prejudice is not required under 60-225(a)(1).	Estate contends prejudice can be considered within totality of circumstances.	Prejudice may be considered; dismissal depends on totality, not prejudice absence alone.
Whether the district court abused by emphasizing post-filing delays	Grahams argue the timing after filing governs reasonableness.	Estate argues delays after death should inform reasonableness.	Abuse occurred by focusing on post-filing delays; start-to-filing period controls reasonable-time analysis.
Whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to death substitution	District court lacked authority after Jones's death without proper substitution.	Substitution process preserves jurisdiction during the substitution window.	The district court retained jurisdiction during the substitution period; death did not automatically terminate jurisdiction.
What time frame starts and ends for the reasonable-time test	The period begins with the suggestion of death and ends with the filing of substitution.	Period may be broader if argued under totality of circumstances.	Period begins at the death suggestion and ends at the filing of the substitution motion.

Livingston v. Estate of Bias, 9 Kan. App. 2d 146 (1984) (discretion in reasonable-time determinations; abuse when legal standards misapplied)
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. Leegin, 294 Kan. 318 (2012) (legal standards for discretionary decision-making; abuse when misapplied)
In re Marriage of Brown, 295 Kan. 966 (2012) (statutory interpretation; scope of appellate review on questions of law)
Esposito v. United States, 368 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2004) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to time-sensitive relief)
Don Conroy Contractor, Inc. v. Jensen, 192 Kan. 300 (1963) (reasonableness determined by circumstances in the statute context)