Schoenholz v. Hinzman, 289 P.3d 1155

Schoenholz and Hinzman orally agreed in 1999 to operate a joint horse-breeding enterprise; Schoenholz would provide breeding horses and store equipment on Hinzman’s farm.
In August 2002 the joint enterprise ended; by April 2003 Schoenholz had not removed his horses or most equipment, and he later failed to retrieve items until 2007.
Hinzman kept caring for the horses and eventually sold them after the arrangement dissolved, while she also boarded a horse with health issues for over 1,200 days.
A battery charge arose from an on-site incident between Schoenholz and Hinzman during discussions about removal of property.
Schoenholz filed suit in 2007 seeking damages for nonreturned horses, depreciation of the tractor, and other materials; Hinzman counterclaimed for costs of storing equipment and caring for horses.
The district court ruled largely for neither side; appellate courts split on damages for horse care, sanctions, and discovery-related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liens and sale rights on boarded livestock	Schoenholz’s property remained bailment; Hinzman lacked proper statutory sale rights.	Hinzman could rely on statutes to recover costs and dispose of perishable property.	Statutory remedies apply; proper disposal rights depend on compliance with notices and timelines.
Accrual of claims and statute of limitations for gratuitous bailment	Bailee’s ownership remained; no abandonment by Schoenholz.	Abandonment terminated bailment; claims accrued earlier.	No abandonment; statute of limitations did not run until sale of property; timely suit.
Conversion versus statutory remedies	Refusal to return horses constitutes conversion; district court erred by not recognizing conversion.	Statutory remedies govern, not conversion.	Conversion claim valid; bailee’s unauthorized disposition supports recovery.
Liability for deterioration of the tractor (non-feasance of gratuitous bailee)	Bailee caused loss by inaction; should compensate loss in value.	gratuitous bailee not liable for non-feasance; no duty to maintain except under statute.	Non-feasance defense applies; no liability for tractor’s deterioration.
Sanctions and attorney fees for discovery violations	District court abused discretion by denying sanctions for false tax returns.	No willful misconduct; sanctions inappropriate.	Sanctions appropriate; district court abused discretion in denial; award remanded for fees.

Lipman v. Petersen, 223 Kan. 483 (Kan. 1978) (bailee liable for conversion notwithstanding good intentions)
Rodgers v. Crum, 168 Kan. 672 (Kan. 1950) (abandonment is an issue of fact)
Jay-Ox, Inc. v. Square Deal Junk Co., Inc., 208 Kan. 856 (Kan. 1972) (abandonment and accrual of action; complexity of statute of limitations)
In re Estate of Sander, 283 Kan. 694 (Kan. 2007) (intent required for abandonment; ownership relinquishment analysis)
Maddock v. Riggs, 106 Kan. 808 (Kan. 1920) (non-feasance limits gratuitous bailees' liability)
Arche v. United States of America, 247 Kan. 276 (Kan. 1990) (tort remedy aim to restore position prior to injury)
State v. Graham, 277 Kan. 121 (Kan. 2004) (agency and evidentiary considerations; trial rulings need not align with trial court reasoning)