Wichita Great Empire Broadcasting v. Gingrich

2 Citing cases

  1. Hole-In-One, Inc., v. Kansas Industrial Land

    22 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 3 times

    " 2 Kan.App.2d at 238-39, 577 P.2d 827.          A similar issue was addressed in Wichita Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc. v. Gingrich, 4 Kan.App.2d 223, 604 P.2d 281 (1979), rev. denied 227 Kan. 928 (1980), where a negligence action was brought against an abstracter. In Great Empire, an abstracter relied on a judgment docket notation which said, " Judgment released 6-21-71."

  2. Colon v. Washington Mutual Bank

    563 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that under Kansas law bankruptcy trustee could not use his strong-arm powers to avoid a mortgage that contained an error in the lot number of the property's legal description but correct street address and parcel identification number

    We begin with the first question: what is the purchaser deemed to know about the contents of documents referenced in the grantor and grantee indices? Because of the Kansas statutory requirement of grantor and grantee indices, it would be natural to conclude that even if Kan. Stat. Ann. § 58-2222 should not be read literally as providing constructive notice of the contents of every properly filed instrument, there is at least constructive notice of the contents of every instrument in the chain of title. The Kansas Court of Appeals essentially reached this conclusion in Wichita Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc. v. Gingrich, 4 Kan.App.2d 223, 604 P.2d 281 (1979). Addressing a claim of professional negligence against an abstracter, the court said that the abstracter must examine the filed instrument rather than rely on the description in an index (in that case, a judgment docket that misdescribed a release as a total release rather than a partial release).