Opinion
NO. 2012-CA-000983-MR
11-21-2014
ANNIE L. CAMENISCH; CHRISTIAN CAMENISCH; JOHANNA CAMENISCH; MARSHA CAMENISCH; ROBERT CAMENISCH; NANCY CAMENISCH-ANDERSON; ELINOR CAMENISCH-FELTS; EMILY CAMENISCH-DAVIS; MARK DAVIS; ELIZABETH CAMENISCH ELLIOTT; MILDRED CAMENISCH JORDAN; AND RONNIE JORDAN APPELLANTS v. CITY OF STANFORD APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS: Christian Camenisch Stanford, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jonathan R. Baker Stanford, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JEFFREY T. BURDETTE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-00202
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CAPERTON, AND NICKELL, JUDGES. CLAYTON, JUDGE: Twelve members of the Camenisch family, either siblings or spouses of siblings, appeal from the May 2, 2012 judgment of the Lincoln Circuit Court, which was entered following a jury verdict. The original complaint, however, was filed on August 1, 1996, by J.B. and Jacqueline Camenisch, who are not appealing the judgment. (J.B. is the brother of the Camenisch siblings appealing the judgment.) When the complaint was filed, the Camenisch siblings and their respective spouses were named as defendants along with the City of Stanford (hereinafter the "City").
After the jury trial, J.B. and Jacqueline were awarded damages payable by the City as a result of it cutting off the water to the dairy farm in July 1996. On May 12, 2012, a "Notice of Satisfaction" was filed with the trial court indicating that the judgment had been paid in full.
After careful review, we dismiss the appeal since no case in controversy exists, and thus, we have no jurisdiction over the matter. The City, as defendant, was ordered to pay damages to J.B. and Jacqueline, the plaintiffs in the underlying case, which it has done. The Camenisches, who are appealing, were named defendants in the complaint filed by J.B. and Jacqueline. Since the filing of the complaint in 1996, the Camenisch defendants have not filed a cross-claim against the City or a counterclaim against J.B. and Jacqueline. Therefore, we have nothing to review on appeal, and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from the interpretation of an 1892 deed from G.T. Rochester to the Howe Pump and Engine Company, which supplied water to the City of Stanford. The pertinent portion of the deed contained a provision that stated that Howe Pump and Engine Company would supply the Rochester farm "with an adequate supply of water for all domestic purposes from the spring . . . and to supply the barn thereon with sufficient water for stock purposes and to furnish one hydrant at or near the gate of the yard." This provision is the basis of the dispute.
The Camenisch family acquired the title to the former Rochester farm in 1905, and title is currently held by three brothers, namely, J.B. Camenisch, Christian Camenisch, and Robert Camenisch. The Howe Pump and Engine Company evolved into the City of Stanford Waterworks, which now holds title to the land containing Buffalo Springs.
Dating back to 1960, the parties disagreed as the duty of the City to provide water to the Camenisches under the deed. The dispute began when the City ceased using Buffalo Springs as a source of water. At that point, the City maintained that it no longer was obligated to provide free water to the Camenisch farm nor was it responsible for the upkeep of the plumbing on the Camenisch property. In contrast, the Camenisch family believed that the City was still required, based on the language in the deed, to provide it free water and maintain the plumbing on the property.
Subsequently, on multiple occasions the City informed the Camenisch family that if they did not pay the water bill or file a declaratory action, the water supply would be stopped. But the Camenisch family performed neither action, so the City cut off the water supply to the property. The water was cut off for an eighteen-day period - July 1, 1996, until July 18, 1996. During this time, J.B. and Jacqueline were operating a dairy farm on the property.
On August 1, 1996, J.B. and Jacqueline, as the sole plaintiffs, filed an action in Lincoln Circuit Court against the City and J.B.'s siblings - Christian Camenisch, Robert Camenisch, Marsha Camenisch, Johanna Camenisch, Elizabeth Camenisch Elliott, Emily Camenisch-Davis, Mark Davis, Mildred Camenisch Jordan, Ronnie Jordan, Elinor Camenisch-Felts, Nancy Camenisch-Anderson, and Anna L. Camenisch (hereinafter the "Camenisch Defendants").
Several defendants filed an answer on August 21, 1996, asking that their right to plead be preserved and answering J.B. and Jacqueline's complaint. In addition, Mildred Camenisch Jordan and her spouse, Ronnie Jordan, filed another answer on August 22, 1996, stating that the complaint failed to state a claim against them, and therefore, should be dismissed. Yet, the Camenisch defendants did not proffer a cross-claim against their co-defendant - the City.
Robert and Marsha Camenisch; Christian Camenisch; Johanna Camenisch; Elizabeth Camenisch Eliott; Emily Camensich-Davis and Mark Davis; Mildred Camenisch Jordon and Ronnie Jordan; Elinor Camenisch-Felts; Nancy Camenisch-Anderson; and, Anna L. Camenisch.
During the pendency of the action, the City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted it on April 30, 2002. J.B. and Jacqueline Camenisch appealed. Our Court addressed the matter in Camenisch v. City of Stanford, 140 S.W.3d 1, (Ky. App. 2003), and vacated the summary judgment. Therein, the Court held that the deed created a covenant running with the land and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Apparently, the Camenisch defendants jointly filed the appeal with J.B. and Jacqueline but did not change their status as defendants.
--------
Upon remand, the parties agreed that the rule of law was provided in the aforementioned appellate decision, and the only remaining issue was whether damages occurred when the City turned off the water to the farm from July 1, 1996, until July 18, 1996. Several years later, on April 23 - 26, 2012, a trial was held on this issue. Following the submission of the matter to the jury, it returned a verdict in favor of J.B. and Jacqueline Camenisch for damages to the farming operation. Regarding any damage to the house on the property, however, the jury found no basis for an award of damages.
A trial order and judgment were entered on May 2, 2012. On May 12, 2012, the City filed a notice of satisfaction of the judgment with J.B. and Jacqueline Camenisch, which indicated that the amount awarded for damages had been paid in full.
On June 1, 2012, Anna L. Camenisch, Christian Camenisch, Johanna Camenisch, Marsha Camenisch, Robert Camenisch, Nancy Camenisch-Anderson, Elinor Camenisch-Felts, Emily Camenisch-Davis, Mark Davis, Elizabeth Camenisch Elliott, Mildred Camenisch Jordan, and Ronnie Jordan, co-defendants in the aforementioned proceeding, appealed the jury verdict. Notably, neither J.B. nor Jacqueline Camenisch was listed as a party to the appeal by the Camenisch defendants.
Notwithstanding that the Camenisch defendants listed several errors by the trial court, we focus on the fact that they never filed any cross-claim against the City or counterclaim against J.B. and Jacqueline. Furthermore, during the trial, the City filed a directed verdict motion, which requested that J.B. and Jacqueline Camenisch be confirmed as the only plaintiffs in the action. The trial court granted this motion.
Thus, the question becomes whether the Camenisch defendants had anything to appeal. With regard to the judgment itself, their co-defendant, the City, has completely satisfied its judgment to J.B. and Jacqueline. Without a claim, it appears that the Camenisch defendants have nothing to appeal. Without any appealable issue, it appears to us that not only do we have nothing to review but also we have no jurisdiction to consider the matter.
A court's jurisdiction is generally a question of law. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803, 810 (Ky. 2004). Consequently, we review the issue de novo.
ANALYSIS
As explained in Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Ky. 2007), "[j]urisdiction, broadly defined, is the power of the court to decide an issue in controversy. Black's Law Dictionary 867 (8th ed. 2004)." As such, "[t]he courts' power to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions, and declare judgment between parties is both constrained by and a function of their jurisdiction." Id. Hence, it is fundamental that a court must have jurisdiction before it has authority to decide a case, and jurisdiction is the procedural threshold that all cases and controversies "must pass prior to having their substance examined." Id.
The Nordike Court goes on to instruct that there are actually three separate types of jurisdiction, which must all be met before a court may hear a case. Id. (citation omitted). The three types of jurisdiction are personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, or the court's power to hear and rule on a particular type of controversy. Id. at 738.
Indeed, as provided in Nordike, "[j]urisdiction can only be addressed within an action itself, whether initiated through a complaint or a motion requesting relief, neither of which has been made in this case." Id. at 739. Here, as a court of review, we are dealing with whether we have jurisdictional authority to review claims raised by the Camenisch defendants.
When J.B. and Jacqueline filed the complaint in 2012, they named J.B.'s siblings as defendants. The Complaint states "[t]hat the Camenisch Defendants are named herein in order that they might assert their interests as they may appear." But, until this appeal, no Camenisch defendant filed a cross-claim, counterclaim, or any pleading seeking damages from the City. Furthermore, the jury verdict did not reference them at all. Consequently, since J.B. and Jacqueline prevailed herein and did not appeal and the Camenisch appellants are co- defendants with the City, for whom they never filed a claim against, there is nothing for us to review on appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.
Motion to Dismiss
Another matter before us involves a motion made on June 27, 2013, by the City to dismiss the appeal because the appellants had not timely filed a brief. Since our Court granted the appellants an enlargement of time to file a brief and then passed the motion to dismiss to the panel for review on the merits, we deny the City's motion. Because both parties filed briefs in the matter, for all practical purposes, that motion is now moot.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, Appeal No. 2012-CA-000983 is DISMISSED. ENTERED: November 21, 2014
/s/ Denise G. Clayton
JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS: Christian Camenisch
Stanford, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Jonathan R. Baker
Stanford, Kentucky