Morton Cnty. Hosp. v. Howell

9 Citing cases

  1. Stout v. KanEquip, Inc.

    551 P.3d 260 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    [8–10] When ruling on a motion to set aside an order under K.S.A. 60-260(b), the district court should consider all the facts, including (1) whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time, (2) whether the motion will prejudice the other party, and (3) whether the moving party has good cause to move to set aside an order. Morton County Hospital v. Howell, 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1109, 361 P.3d 515 (2015). On appeal, this court reviews a district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, which the party claiming error—here, the Stouts—must prove.

  2. In re Marriage of Meier

    No. 121,497 (Kan. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2020)

    First, we note that even if the reasonableness of the timing of such a motion is not addressed by the district court, this court may consider the issue on appeal. See In re Marriage of Leedy, 279 Kan. 311, 323-24, 109 P.3d 1130 (2005); Morton County Hospital v. Howell, 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1108, 361 P.3d 515 (2015). A "reasonable time" depends on the facts of each case and is in the discretion of the district court.

  3. FSST Fin. Servs. v. Native Payment Servs.

    459 P.3d 836 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020)

    While Brautman claims he did not understand how to proceed with defending the lawsuit, "confusion related to proceedings does not qualify as excusable neglect." Morton County Hospital v. Howell , 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1113, 361 P.3d 515 (2015). Brautman's assertions that he was unable to pay an attorney and was unfamiliar with the law also fail to establish excusable neglect.

  4. Wiedemann v. Fraternity

    522 P.3d 325 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022)

    Contrary to Wiedemann's assertion, panels of this court have recognized that petitioners in small claims cases may generally seek relief from judgments or orders pursuant to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-260 —as Fraternity did in this case. See Morton County Hospital v. Howell , 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1106, 361 P.3d 515 (2015) ; Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Beadle , 40 Kan. App. 2d 989, Syl. ¶ 4, 197 P.3d 896 (2008) (" K.S.A. 60-260 ... is incorporated into the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure for Limited Actions and applies to Chapter 61 judgments so long as it does not conflict with other provisions of Chapter 61."). Additionally, the Act incorporated several provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including motions "concerning relief from judgment or order" under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-260.

  5. State v. Estate of Sands

    473 P.3d 384 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020)

    "District courts have the responsibility under K.S.A. [2018] Supp. 60-260(c)(1) ] to make a determination regarding whether a motion to set aside the judgment was filed within a reasonable time after the judgment or order was entered." Morton County Hospital v. Howell , 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1108, 361 P.3d 515 (2015). The district court denied the Estate's motion to set aside judgment, in part, because the motion was not filed in a reasonable time.

  6. Auto. Credit Corp. v. Walley

    444 P.3d 1014 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019)

    By excusable neglect, we mean a legitimate or valid excuse for the failure to perform some required action at the proper time. See Morton County Hospital v. Howell , 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1112-13, 361 P.3d 515 (2015) ; Black's Law Dictionary 1244 (11th ed. 2019).Whether to set aside a default judgment based on excusable neglect is a discretionary judgment call for the district court. Garcia v. Ball , 303 Kan. 560, 565-66, 363 P.3d 399 (2015).

  7. Cox v. Cmty. State Bank

    444 P.3d 377 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019)

    Although it is less than clear from their appellate brief, it appears Robert, Don, and Reba intend to argue the district court erred as an abuse of discretion. See First Nat'l Bank in Belleville v. Sankey Motors, Inc. , 41 Kan. App. 2d 629, 634, 204 P.3d 1167 (2009) (the district court's decision whether to set aside a default judgment will be disturbed only on appeal upon a showing of abuse of discretion); see also Morton County Hospital v. Howell , 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1112, 361 P.3d 515 (2015) (a district court's denial of a K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-260(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact.

  8. Johnston v. Johnston

    402 P.3d 570 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 11 times

    A district court abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would agree with the ruling or the ruling is based on a legal or factual error. In re Marriage of Larson , 257 Kan. 456, 463–64, 894 P.2d 809 (1995) ; Morton County Hospital v. Howell , 51 Kan. App. 2d 1103, 1108–09, 361 P.3d 515 (2015), rev. denied 304 Kan. 1017 (2016).Jim contends that Pam is arguing that the parties made a mistake when they failed to account for the present value of his military retirement.

  9. Ruiz v. Cervantes

    No. 33592-5-III (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017)

    Also, other states measure the timeliness of a motion to vacate on the date of the filing of the motion, not the date of the motion hearing. Jonas v. Playhouse Square Condominium Association, Inc., 173 Conn.App. 36, ___ A.3d ___ (2017); Minick v. City of Petaluma, 3 Cal.App. 5th 15, 34, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 350 (2016); Ball v. Jones, 52 N.E.3d 813, 818 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016); Morton County Hospital v. Howell, 51 Kan.App.2d 1103, 1107, 361 P.3d 515 (2015).