Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC
270 P.3d 1065
Kan.2011Background
- Glacier Development Co., LLC owned property in Kansas City, KS, affected by KDOT eminent domain taking in 2003.
- KDOT paid the appraisers' award to Glacier; the district court later withdrew funds to Glacier per 26-510(b).
- KDOT appealed the award; Dean was included in pleadings and judgments as a landowner despite not being named personally in the petition.
- A 2005 district court judgment awarded the excess of the appraisers' award to KDOT against “the Defendants,” without specifying Dean personally liable.
- Final FMV after trial was $800,000; the excess amount was adjudicated in the dismissal/entry of judgment against Glacier/Dean interests.
- Dean sought relief arguing he was not properly named or served personally, and contends the district court lacked jurisdiction to bind him personally in the eminent-domain appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had jurisdiction to hold Dean personally liable | Dean argues lack of personal jurisdiction; no personal service | Dean asserts LLC entity shield; no personal liability | No jurisdiction to impose personal liability; judgment void |
| Res judicata applicability to bar Dean's challenge | Plaintiff argues prior ruling on jurisdiction bars relitigation | Dean argues doctrines apply to final judgments on merits | Res judicata does not apply to void lack of jurisdiction issue |
| Proper scope of district court in eminent domain appeal (26-508 to 26-511) | Only compensation issues are within appeal; can seek separate action for other issues | Dean was properly a party; issues exceeding valuation not within appeal | District court lacked authority to adjudge personal liability for LLC debt within the eminent domain appeal |
| Effect of statutory scheme (26-507, 26-510, 26-511) on personal liability | Plaintiff can seek return of excess funds from the distributee Glacier | Dean did not personally receive funds; no “difference” to return | No personal judgment against Dean; remedy lies against Glacier, not Dean |
| Effect of Dotson v. State Highway Commission on this case | Dotson supports party becoming bound upon appearance | Different procedural posture; no binding personal liability against Dean | Dotson governs; Dean bound by appearance and judgment only if jurisdiction exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Bartle, 283 Kan. 108 (2007) (eminent domain appeals limited to compensation issues; jurisdictional scope defined)
- Bartle, 283 Kan. 108, 150 P.3d 1282 (2007) (elucates limits of district court in eminent domain appeals)
- Dotson v. State Highway Commission, 198 Kan. 671, 426 P.2d 138 (1967) (filing appearance equates to service; party bound to appeal)
- State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911, 219 P.3d 481 (2009) (in pari materia interpretation of related statutes)
- State v. McDaniel, 255 Kan. 756, 877 P.2d 961 (1994) (appeal to district court when an appeal is docketed; limits jurisdiction)
- State v. Flores, 283 Kan. 380, 153 P.3d 506 (2007) (res judicata analysis and final judgments)
- Barkley v. Toland, 7 Kan. App. 2d 625, 646 P.2d 1124 (1982) (void judgments without subject matter jurisdiction)
- Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (law of the case doctrine; finality of settled questions)