Moulden v. Hundley, 116415

Background

Hope Hundley received title to two classic cars (1963 Thunderbird, 1954 Crestline) from her father, Davis Moulden, in 2005; the car titles showed Hope as owner at her death in January 2012. The cars remained in Davis’s garage after her death. Dustin Hundley (Hope’s husband) later transferred the car titles to his name in 2013.
Davis sued in 2015 seeking declaration of ownership of the cars and return of furniture/household items he had loaned to Hope. Dustin counterclaimed, arguing Davis’s claims were time-barred.
The district court found the cars belonged to Dustin (as Hope’s heir) because Davis did not file a probate/estate claim within six months as required by K.S.A. 59-2239. The court found Davis owned the furniture, ruling Davis had only loaned it and the two-year statute of limitations did not bar his claim.
On appeal, Davis argued possession/garage storage preserved his claim to the cars; Dustin argued the furniture claim was time-barred because Hope’s death started the limitations period.
The appellate court affirmed: K.S.A. 59-2239 barred Davis’s car claims because legal title had been transferred to Hope and Davis failed to file within six months; the furniture claim was not barred because the bailment was indefinite and the limitations period began when Dustin refused Davis’s demand for return.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Davis)	Defendant's Argument (Dustin)	Held
Ownership of cars (application of K.S.A. 59-2239)	Possession/garage storage preserved his claim despite not filing probate within six months.	Title transfer to Hope created presumptive ownership; K.S.A. 59-2239 bars claims not filed within six months.	Affirmed for Dustin: statutory six-month probate/administration rule applies; Davis’s failure to file bars his claim.
Effect of prior transfer instruments on K.S.A. 59-2239	The Oswald precedent allows possession to avoid probate claim requirement.	Title documents (and absence of bill of sale) distinguish Oswald; here legal title passed to Hope.	Court distinguishes Oswald: that case involved a bill of sale conveying legal title; here title was in Hope’s name, so statute applies.
Ownership/return of furniture (statute of limitations under K.S.A. 60-513)	Furniture was loaned (gratuitous bailment); limitations did not run until Davis demanded return and was refused.	Claim accrued at Hope’s death (when items remained with Dustin), so two-year period expired before suit.	Affirmed for Davis: for an indefinite gratuitous bailment, cause of action accrues only on demand and refusal; claim timely.
Effect of bailee’s death on accrual of bailment claim	After Hope’s death, Dustin’s possession created a constructive bailment; limitations still run from demand/refusal.	Death of bailee terminated bailment, so claim accrued at death and limitations started then.	Court adopts constructive-bailment approach; bailee’s death did not start limitations if heir acted consistently with bailment—accrual occurred on demand/refusal.

Key Cases Cited

Schoenholz v. Hinzman, 295 Kan. 786 (2012) (an indefinite gratuitous bailment’s statute of limitations accrues on demand for return and refusal)
Oswald v. Weigel, 215 Kan. 928 (1974) (possession plus signed bill of sale effected present conveyance of legal title and avoided probate claim requirement)
Nelson v. Nelson, 288 Kan. 570 (2009) (K.S.A. 59-2239 operates as a complete bar to untimely demands against a decedent’s estate)
State ex rel. Love v. One 1967 Chevrolet, 247 Kan. 469 (1990) (vehicle title creates a presumption of ownership that can be rebutted in probate proceedings)
Martin v. Briggs, 235 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (when bailee dies and heir retains property without acting inconsistently with bailment, a constructive bailment may preserve accrual rules; limitations begin on demand/refusal)