Wiechman v. Huddleston, 370 P.3d 1194

In 2007 Wiechman sued Huddleston for negligence arising from a 2005 car accident; insurers negotiated a $25,000 settlement which Wiechman’s counsel returned with a release in 2008 but payment was not made.
The district court dismissed the negligence suit for lack of prosecution in December 2008.
More than four years later Wiechman moved to set aside the dismissal, alleging he accepted the settlement but never received payment; he also filed a separate breach-of-contract action against the insurer.
The district court granted the motion to reinstate the negligence case, focusing on alleged insurer unfairness and finding "good cause," but did not analyze the statutory time limits in K.S.A. 60-260(c).
Huddleston appealed interlocutorily without seeking certification under K.S.A. 60-2102(c), relying instead on a common-law jurisdictional exception (Brown v. Fitzpatrick) to support appellate jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Brown remains valid and whether the appeal was authorized by statute.

Issue	Wiechman’s Argument	Huddleston’s Argument	Held
Whether a court-made ‘‘jurisdictional exception’’ (Brown) permits interlocutory appeal from an order setting aside a final judgment under K.S.A. 60-260	Brown was distinguishable or not controlling; appellate jurisdiction limited to statute but Brown still good	Brown creates an exception allowing an interlocutory appeal from orders setting aside judgments	Brown overruled to the extent it created a judicial exception; appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory and Brown is illegitimate
Whether the interlocutory appeal was authorized without statutory certification (timeliness/appealability)	The reinstatement order was appealable under Brown (so no statutory certification required)	Appeal not authorized by K.S.A. 60-2102(a)/(c); Huddleston failed to obtain interlocutory certification	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Huddleston did not meet statutory appellate requirements
Whether the case was moot given resolution of related breach-of-contract litigation	Argued the appeal was not moot; outstanding issues (interest, fraud claims) remained	Asserted the appeal might be moot because contract case resolved	Court held the appeal was not shown to be moot and retained jurisdictional analysis

Brown v. Fitzpatrick, 224 Kan. 636 (Kan. 1978) (created a judicial "jurisdictional exception" allowing appeals from orders setting aside judgments)
Board of Sedgwick County Comm’rs v. City of Park City, 293 Kan. 107 (Kan. 2011) (rejected court-made equitable exceptions to statutory appellate jurisdiction)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (U.S. Supreme Court held appellate jurisdiction statutorily constrained; courts may not create equitable exceptions)
Kaelter v. Sokol, 301 Kan. 247 (Kan. 2015) (appellate jurisdiction exists only as authorized by statute)