Hansford v. Silver Lake Heights, LLC, 280 P.3d 756

Hansford was named as a defendant in a Shawnee County partition action for the east land; he did not respond or claim ownership in the partition petition.
The partition decree described the subject property by metes-and-bounds; the water district owned the excluded strip.
After partition and sale to Silver Lake Heights, Hansford later claimed the strip west of a fence formed a boundary by agreement.
Hansford filed a separate action to quiet title and enjoin trespass, asserting adverse possession and boundary by agreement.
The district court granted summary judgment for Silver Lake Heights; the Court of Appeals affirmed; this court granted review and affirmed.
The central issue is whether Hansford can collaterally attack the partition judgment or establish a boundary by agreement after partition and sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral attack on partition judgment barred?	Hansford says collateral claim should be allowed.	Silver Lake Heights contends failure to appeal forecloses collateral challenge.	Yes; collateral attack barred.
Boundary by agreement can defeat purchase after partition?	Hansford contends boundary by agreement exists before partition.	Silver Lake Heights argues no pleadings of such boundary and timing defeats claim.	No; not allowed under timing and pleadings rules.
Impact of pleadings and statutes on the boundary claim?	Hansford argues the claim should survive regardless of partition pleadings.	Silver Lake Heights relies on K.S.A. 60-1003(b) and McGinty/Jones to preclude.	Pleadings and statutes control; claim dismissed as collateral attack.
Materiality of disputed facts for summary judgment?	Hansford says facts support boundary by agreement.	Facts were not material to the conclusive issues under partition law.	Facts immaterial; summary judgment appropriate.

McGinty v. Hoosier, 291 Kan. 224, 239 P.3d 843 (2010) (partitions pass entire estate unless exceptions are implied; failure to appeal precludes collateral attack)
Jones v. Anderson, 171 Kan. 430, 233 P.2d 483 (1951) (partition court has full power to adjudicate all rights of cotenants)
Fritzler v. Dumler, 209 Kan. 16, 495 P.2d 1027 (1972) (ambiguous vs unambiguous property descriptions affect boundary determinations)
Maxwell v. Redd, 209 Kan. 264, 496 P.2d 1320 (1972) (conveyance based on described boundaries conveys land within those boundaries)
In re Moore, 173 Kan. 820, 252 P.2d 875 (1953) (deed cannot convey property beyond jurisdiction; partition descriptions govern)