Ullery v. Othick
304 Kan. 405
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Wrongful-death suit after a 2012 car crash; plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including Beatty and Windsor Place.
- District court issued a February 10, 2014 memorandum decision granting various summary-judgment rulings but did not then include the statutory "no just reason for delay" language from K.S.A. 60-254(b).
- Plaintiffs moved April 16, 2014 to certify the February 10 entry as a final judgment under K.S.A. 60-254(b); a hearing occurred May 27, 2014.
- On July 29, 2014 the district court filed a journal entry expressly modifying the February 10 decision and certifying certain rulings as final, stating there was "no just reason for delay."
- Plaintiffs timely appealed (notice filed August 27, 2014); the Kansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal based on Prime Lending II v. Trolley’s Real Estate Holdings.
- Kansas Supreme Court granted review and held the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to dismiss; remanded for consideration of the merits of plaintiffs’ appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may certify an earlier interlocutory order as final under K.S.A. 60-254(b) at a later date (i.e., retroactive vs. post-entry certification) | Certification may be made after the initial order; the 30-day appeal clock begins when the journal entry containing the express "no just reason for delay" language is filed | Prime Lending requires the certification to be contemporaneous with the original order; retroactive certification is ineffective and deprives appellate jurisdiction | Court held post-entry certification is permissible: the July 29 journal entry with the express "no just reason for delay" made the judgment appealable and started the 30-day appeal period; Court of Appeals' dismissal was incorrect |
Key Cases Cited
- Prime Lending II v. Trolley’s Real Estate Holdings, 48 Kan. App. 2d 847 (Court of Appeals) (held a retroactive certification was improper in the facts before that panel)
- City of Salina v. Star B, Inc., 241 Kan. 692 (Kan. 1987) (trial court must make an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and expressly direct entry of judgment)
- State ex rel. Board of Healing Arts v. Beyrle, 262 Kan. 507 (Kan. 1997) (discussed limits on certification; court noted Beyrle did not attempt to satisfy K.S.A. 60-254(b))
- In re Marriage of Brown, 295 Kan. 966 (Kan. 2012) (clarified that K.S.A. 60-254(b) "revision" refers to substantive revision of an interlocutory order)