The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, finding that a determination of whether a motion for substitution has been made within a “reasonable time” requires consideration of the circumstances of each case, including, (1) the diligence of the party seeking substitution; (2) whether any other party would be prejudiced by any delay; and (3) whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or defense has merit. Graham v. Herring, 44 Kan.App.2d 1131, 1133–34, 242 P.3d 253 (2010).
The issue ultimately turned on whether Emery's widow sought to substitute the Estate as a party within a reasonable time. See Graham v. Herring, 44 Kan.App.2d 1131, Syl. ¶ 1, 242 P.3d 253 (2010), rev. granted 293 Kan. –––– (October 7, 2011). According to Graham, there is no bright-line test for determining a reasonable time within which to seek a substitution of parties.