Johnson v. Board of Directors of Forest Lakes Master Assn.
123581
| Kan. Ct. App. | Dec 10, 2021Background
- Harold Johnson sued the Forest Lakes Master Association alleging the Board violated the Association’s voting procedures and the Kansas Uniform Common Interest Owners Bill of Rights Act; the trial court granted the Board summary judgment and denied Johnson’s summary judgment motion.
- This court (Johnson) reversed the trial court, directed the trial court to grant Johnson summary judgment, and held that the trial court’s prior attorney-fee award to the Board was erroneous; the Johnson opinion declined to award Johnson trial-level fees because it concluded he had not preserved the issue on appeal.
- After the Kansas Supreme Court denied review, Johnson filed a postremand motion for trial-court attorney fees under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 58-4621 and for costs; the Board opposed, arguing the appellate mandate and law-of-the-case barred consideration.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Johnson as directed, awarded costs, but denied Johnson’s motion for attorney fees, reasoning the appellate mandate and prior appellate ruling foreclosed reconsideration.
- On appeal, this court held the trial court misinterpreted the Johnson mandate: the appellate opinion never decided the merits of Johnson’s trial-fee claim, so the trial court must consider the fee motion on the merits; the court also granted Johnson appellate fees in the amount shown on his invoice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could consider Johnson’s motion for trial-level attorney fees on remand | Johnson: appellate opinion did not decide the merits; mandate did not bar a postremand fee motion | Board: Johnson raised fees for first time on appeal; appellate ruling (and law of the case) bars relitigation | Reversed; trial court misinterpreted mandate — must consider and rule on fee motion on the merits |
| Whether K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 58-4621 requires fee motions pre-judgment or permits postjudgment motions | Johnson: statute contains no timing deadline and must be liberally administered; postjudgment motions allowed (Bussman) | Board: statute permits fees but timing/mandate forecloses postremand motion | Court: statute lacks a deadline and gives fair notice; postjudgment fee motion permitted under Bussman reasoning |
| Whether failure to list fees in pretrial conference order or earlier constitutes abandonment | Johnson: omission did not permanently waive fee claim; trial court could amend pretrial order for manifest injustice | Board: omission/absence from pretrial order constitutes abandonment | Court: trial court did not rely on abandonment as its primary reason; omission alone does not necessarily bar postjudgment motion; amendment/manifest injustice available |
| Whether Johnson is entitled to appellate attorney fees and amount | Johnson: timely moved for appellate fees under Rule 7.07 and 58-4621; requested $1,891.50 (invoice showed $1,855.88) | Board: did not respond | Court: Authority exists; awarded appellate fees of $1,855.88 (invoice amount) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 298 Kan. 700 (2014) (postjudgment fee motions allowed where statute lacks a timing deadline and provides fair, explicit notice of fee entitlement)
- State v. Soto, 310 Kan. 242 (2019) (mandate rule limits district court action only when an issue was finally settled on appeal; otherwise district court must resolve remaining matters)
- Provance v. Shawnee Mission Unified Sch. Dist. No. 512, 235 Kan. 927 (1984) (when appellate decision fully determines issues, mandate becomes part of the judgment; directions needed only for unresolved issues)
- Building Erection Servs. Co. v. Walton Constr. Co., 312 Kan. 432 (2021) (trial courts are bound by appellate mandates and law-of-the-case principles)
- Harder v. Foster, 54 Kan. App. 2d 444 (2017) (Ct. App.) (omission of a fee request from a pretrial order does not necessarily bar a posttrial fee motion when request was otherwise raised)
- Snider v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 297 Kan. 157 (2012) (lodestar is not the sole method for statutory fee awards; multiple factors inform reasonableness)
- Law v. Law Co. Building Assocs., 295 Kan. 551 (2012) (dicta in opinions are not binding)
- State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041 (2015) (court may decline to reach merits when an issue is not preserved on appeal)