Ward v. Hahn
116654
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Kirk Hahn (Nebraska resident) owned a one-half undivided interest in real property located in Osborne County, Kansas; Hahn’s parents owned the other one-half interest.
- Nebraska divorce court equitably divided marital property and issued a decree directly assigning Hahn’s Kansas real estate to his ex-wife, Cheri Ward, and ordered the decree recorded in Osborne County to effectuate transfer.
- Ward asked a Kansas district court to enforce the Nebraska decree and to partition the land between her and the Hahns; Hahn had personal jurisdiction in Nebraska but did not execute a deed in Kansas.
- The Kansas district court concluded the Nebraska court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to directly transfer Kansas title, so the decree was not enforceable under Full Faith and Credit, but nevertheless enforced the decree under the doctrine of comity and partitioned the land accordingly.
- Clifford and Iris Hahn appealed, arguing enforcement under comity violated Kansas public policy because a sister state cannot directly transfer title to land located in Kansas.
- The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by enforcing the Nebraska decree under comity because direct transfers of out-of-state land are void under Kansas law and would violate public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Kansas court may enforce, by comity, a sister-state divorce decree that directly assigns title to Kansas real estate | Ward: Nebraska decree should be enforced under comity to effectuate property division and avoid relitigation | Hahns: Such enforcement is repugnant to Kansas public policy because a sister state cannot directly transfer title to land in Kansas | Court: Enforcement under comity was improper—direct transfer by a sister state is void in Kansas and comity cannot be used to give it effect |
| Whether the Nebraska court indirectly transferred title by ordering Hahn to execute deeds or paperwork | Ward: Nebraska’s decree implicitly/expressly required Hahn to execute documents to effectuate transfer | Hahns: Record contains no order compelling Hahn to convey; Nebraska attempted a direct in rem transfer | Court: No factual or legal support for an indirect in personam transfer; issue waived by Ward and unsupported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoppe v. Hoppe, 181 Kan. 428, 312 P.2d 215 (Kan. 1957) (a sister-state court cannot directly affect title to land in Kansas; such attempts are void)
- Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1909) (courts may decree conveyance in personam but such decrees have no efficacy over land beyond the court’s jurisdiction)
- Weesner v. Weesner, 168 Neb. 346, 95 N.W.2d 682 (Neb. 1959) (a sister-state court cannot directly affect title to land in another state)
- Padron v. Lopez, 289 Kan. 1089, 220 P.3d 345 (Kan. 2009) (exercise of comity is discretionary and should be denied where enforcement would offend forum public policy)
- Perrenoud v. Perrenoud, 206 Kan. 559, 480 P.2d 749 (Kan. 1971) (Kansas recognizes sister-state divorce decrees generally, but not to the extent they violate Kansas public policy)