GT, KANSAS, LLC v. Riley County Register of Deeds
Citation | 271 Kan. 311,22 P.3d 600 |
Decision Date | 27 April 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 83,692.,83,692. |
Parties | GT, KANSAS, L.L.C., Appellee, v. RILEY COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Lewis A. Heaven, Jr., of Holbrook, Heaven & Osborn, P.A., of Merriam, argued the cause, and Richard J. Plouff, of the same firm, and Stan Morgan, of Manhattan, were with him on the briefs for appellant.
Charles S. Arthur, III, of Arthur-Green, L.L.P., of Manhattan, argued the cause, and William J. Bahr, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
Lewis A. Heaven, Jr., and Richard J. Plouff, of Holbrook, Heaven & Osborn, P.A., of Merriam, were on the brief for amicus curiae Kansas Register of Deeds Association.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
We accepted the petition for review in this case to resolve a continuing controversy over the statutory exemption from payment of the mortgage registration fee when an existing indebtedness secured by a previously recorded mortgage upon which the mortgage registration fee has been paid is refinanced.
The statutory provision which is at issue in this appeal is K.S.A. 79-3102(d)(3), which states:
The facts are not in substantial dispute but the statutory language in issue has resulted in a mortgagee claim of exemption from a mortgage registration tax, a county register of deeds claim of taxation, a split Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) ruling decreeing taxation, a district court decision allowing the exemption, and a Court of Appeals opinion refusing to apply the exemption.
With this highly summarized background, we first turn to the factual and procedural history of this case as set forth in the Court of Appeals' opinion:
The Court of Appeals' opinion discussed the reasoning behind the recording act, the appellate court's unlimited review, contentions of the County, and contentions of GT. It also discussed In re Application of Zivanovic, 261 Kan. 191, 929 P.2d 1377 (1996), and the strict construction of tax exemptions, and then focused on the requirement that the one refinancing the initial indebtedness must have the legal responsibility for its payment, which the opinion believed (incorrectly) that GT did not have. The Court of Appeals' opinion concluded:
After we accepted review, GT filed a supplemental brief in which it argued that the issue before BOTA and the district court had been based only on the change of legal entity of the property ownership but that in both of the deeds of record, the grantees (Bowman and Curtin in the first deed and GT in the second deed) had assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage indebtedness. GT also argued the change of entity from partnership ownership to limited liability company ownership fell under the statutory provisions of K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-7654 (repealed L. 1999, ch. 119, § 87), which required GT to assume the liability for the indebtedness secured by the mortgage. GT further argued that under both the majority and dissent of Zivanovic, the exception was proper because the indebtedness refinanced included the principal of the original loan to Boatmen's, and GT also repeated the double taxation argument on which the district court relied.
The County countered by contending that GT could not now raise the fact it had assumed the indebtedness because it had not been raised in the proceedings below and GT's claim was based on the bare assertions of GT's counsel and set forth in the appendix to its brief, which is not a substitute for the record itself. The County argued that even if GT's argument were considered, the statute focused on "indebtedness" and it had not been shown that GT had any enforceable liability for its payment and, therefore, no claim to the exemption.
As to the argument that K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-7654 resulted in the assumption of the indebtedness by GT as a matter of law, the County contended this is also a totally new argument not previously made which should not be considered and which would not change the result of the Court of Appeals' decision if it was. As to GT's Zivanovic argument, the County argues that case is clearly factually different and does not apply when the borrower changes. Finally, the County repeats its argument that the mortgage registration fee...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re K.M.H.
...give these words as used in K.S.A. 38-1114(f) the meaning accorded them in everyday English. See GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 316, 22 P.3d 600 (2001). When we do so, there can be no doubt that the pleadings filed by the parties are "in writing." Howeve......
-
Miller v. Johnson
...there”); see also O'Brien, 294 Kan. at 331, 277 P.3d 1062; Graham, 284 Kan. at 554, 161 P.3d 695; GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 316, 22 P.3d 600 (2001). Even a learned Court of Appeals colleague has not persuaded us to do otherwise. See Board of Miami C......
-
State v. Robinson, No. 91,875.
...Supp. 77-201, Second. In other words, "[o]rdinary words are to be given their ordinary meaning." GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 316, 22 P.3d 600 (2001). The legislature has further directed that "words and phrases that have acquired a peculiar and approp......
-
Trees Oil Company v. State Corporation Commission, No. 91,733 (KS 2/18/2005)
...of a statute, we are obligated to apply the doctrine of operative construction as we stated in GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 317, 22 P.3d 600 (2001): "`"The interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the responsibility of enfor......
-
Operations
...and the newly formed LLC was required to return the property to the original LLC. GT, Kansas, LLC v. Riley County Register of Deeds , 22 P.3d 600 (Kan. 2001). Mortgage transfer to a new entity does not trigger payment of registration fee for the full amount of the total mortgage, only the n......
-
Litigation
...a 50% non-managing member did not have the ability to cease the business operations of the LLC. GT v. Riley County Register of Deeds , 271 Kan. 311, 22 P.3d 600, 2001 Kan. LEXIS 281 (2001). Mortgage transfer to a new entity does not trigger payment of a registration fee for the full amount ......