Uhlmann v. Richardson
287 P.3d 287
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Uhlmann guaranteed 60% of the Walker U-Stor loan; Richardsons guaranteed 24%; Russell died, business lost money, and Uhlmann paid the deficiency to bank
- Jury found Richardsons signed the guarantee; Uhlmann sued for contribution and unjust enrichment for their shares
- District court submitted unjust enrichment to the jury; jury ruled for Uhlmann on unjust enrichment and Richardsons on signiture
- Uhlmann sought equitable contribution if unjust enrichment failed; district court entered judgment denying equitable contribution
- Uhlmann appealed and Richardsons cross-appealed; remand sought to address equitable defenses and determine pro rata liability
- Uhlmann argued garnishment proceedings did not forfeit his right to appeal; court held no forfeiture and reversed justice for remand
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment or contribution governs | Richardsons; unjust enrichment appropriate | Richardsons; contribution governs | Contribution governs; unjust enrichment inappropriate |
| If contribution applies, amount owed by Richardsons | Uhlmann; equitable contribution limits liability | Richardsons; liability limited to pro rata share | Richardsons liable for 24% of net deficiency, subject to equitable defenses and remand |
| Role of equitable defenses in adjusting recovery | Equitable defenses may reduce or eliminate recovery | Equitable defenses limit damages but require factual findings | Remand to district court to determine applicable equitable defenses |
| Whether Uhlmann’s garnishment triggered acquiescence affecting appeal rights | No acquiescence; garnishment not collection | Garnishment constitutes acquiescence | Uhlmann did not lose appeal rights; judgment reversed for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Kee v. Lofton, 12 Kan. App. 2d 155 (1987) (contribution must be equal and ratable among coguarantors)
- Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Pastine, 281 Kan. 1266 (2006) (appellate rights unaffected by protective collection steps)
- Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280 (2009) (acquiescence requires voluntary, not involuntary, actions)
- Tice v. Ebeling, 238 Kan. 704 (1986) (acquiescence principle discussed in evidentiary context)
- Almack v. Steeley, 43 Kan. App. 2d 764 (2010) (acquiescence and appellate rights; differing panel views)
- McDaniel v. Jones, 235 Kan. 93 (1984) (waiver/acquiescence and right to appeal)
- Steed v. McPherson Area Solid Waste Utility, 43 Kan. App. 2d 75 (2010) (journal entry controls; standard of review)