Kerry G. v. Stacy C.
411 P.3d 1227
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Kerry obtained a final Protection From Abuse (PFA) order against Stacy after allegations of nonconsensual sexual contact; the order was set to expire October 13, 2016 and noted it "may be extended" on motion of the plaintiff.
- Kerry filed a motion under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) seeking a one-year extension on August 29, 2016; the district magistrate granted the extension on October 11, 2016 without a hearing and without serving Stacy or his attorney with the motion.
- Stacy learned of the extension only after the order was served on him, moved to set aside the extension, and the magistrate denied relief, holding no notice or hearing was required and that courts routinely grant such extensions without notice.
- Stacy appealed, arguing (1) denial of due process (no notice or opportunity to be heard), (2) K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-3107(e)(1) is unconstitutionally vague, and (3) the district court abused its discretion.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory rights and procedure under chapter 60, concluded Stacy’s statutory right to notice and an opportunity to be heard was violated, vacated the one-year extension, and addressed vagueness and abuse-of-discretion issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kerry) | Defendant's Argument (Stacy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stacy was entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before a one-year extension under K.S.A. 60-3107(e)(1) | No hearing or notice required for a one-year extension; court may grant on motion | Motion must be served; defendant entitled to notice and chance to respond/request oral argument under chapter 60 and Rule 133 | Court held Stacy had statutory right to be served with the motion, to respond, and to request oral argument; failure to serve violated his statutory rights and vacated the extension |
| Whether K.S.A. 60-3107(e)(1) is void for vagueness | Statute permits court discretion to extend; not vague | Statute lacks standards for when extension should be granted, risking arbitrary enforcement | Court construed statute as constitutional when read to require judge to exercise discretion based on good cause and necessity to protect plaintiff; not void for vagueness |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is required for a one-year extension | No evidentiary hearing required for a one-year extension | While no evidentiary hearing is statutorily required, defendant should get notice/right to be heard and may request oral argument | Court: No statutory evidentiary hearing required, but parties must receive notice and may request oral argument; judge may rule without oral argument if none requested |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by extending without considering facts | Extension is permitted as routine practice | Magistrate failed to exercise discretion—applied a blanket rule and made no factual findings | Court found abuse of discretion because judge applied a blanket practice and failed to consider individual case facts; vacated extension |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Slusher v. City of Leavenworth, 285 Kan. 438 (2007) (mootness and when a judgment is effective)
- Smith v. Martens, 279 Kan. 242 (2005) (considering expired protective-order appeals when issue is capable of repetition and of public importance)
- State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita, 303 Kan. 650 (2016) (appellate courts avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings when a valid alternative ground exists)
- Jordan v. Jordan, 47 Kan. App. 2d 300 (2012) (standard for judicial abuse of discretion)
- Kansas Dept. of Revenue v. Powell, 290 Kan. 564 (2010) (tribunal abuses discretion by applying blanket rules without individualized consideration)