Huffman v. City of Maize
| Decision Date | 22 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 116,500.,116,500. |
| Citation | 404 P.3d 345,54 Kan.App.2d 693 |
| Parties | Kevin HUFFMAN d/b/a Huffman Mobile Management, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MAIZE, Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Nicholas R. Grillot, of Hinkle Law Firm, LLC, of Wichita, for appellants Justin Westhoff and Steven Westhoff.
Joseph H. Cassell, of Eron Law, P.A., of Wichita, for appellant Kevin Huffman.
Stephen E. Robison, Lyndon W. Vix, and T. Chet Compton, of Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C., of Wichita, for appellee.
Before Malone, P.J., Pierron and Bruns, JJ.
Kevin Huffman, d/b/a Huffman Mobile Management (Huffman), and Steven and Justin Westhoff, d/b/a Sunflower Village (the Westhoffs), appeal from the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the City of Maize in this action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Huffman and the Westhoffs—who own mobile home parks in Maize—filed this action alleging that an ordinance regulating mobile home parks enacted by the City is unconstitutional. On appeal, Huffman and the Westhoffs contend that the mobile home ordinance violates their rights to due process and equal protection. They also contend that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are insufficient. Because we find that the ordinance is a proper exercise of police power by the City, we conclude that there has been no violation of Huffman's and the Westhoffs' constitutional rights. Furthermore, we conclude that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are sufficient. Thus, we affirm.
In 2014, the City of Maize enacted an ordinance regulating mobile home parks. Prior to that time, there was no ordinance regulating mobile home parks in Maize. Before adopting the new ordinance, the City formed a committee to study mobile home park ordinances from other cities. The committee then worked with the City Attorney to develop the language for a proposed ordinance to present to the city council for its consideration.
After giving notice to the public, the city council held a preliminary discussion regarding the proposed mobile home park ordinance on June 16, 2014. A number of people, including Huffman and the Westhoffs, attended the city council meeting to raise their concerns about the proposed ordinance. As a result, the city council directed the committee to meet with those opposed to the ordinance in an attempt to address their concerns.
After the committee met with the people who had expressed opposition to the mobile home park ordinance, the proposed ordinance was revised and posted on the City's website. At a work session held on November 3, 2014, the city council discussed the proposed ordinance as revised and set the matter for final action on the agenda of its next meeting. Moreover, the city council gave notice to the public on its website that it would be considering the proposed mobile home ordinance at its meeting on November 17, 2015. In addition, prior to the meeting, the deputy city administrator sent Huffman and the Westhoffs the revised language of the proposed ordinance the city council would be considering.
At the meeting on November 17, the city council discussed the proposed mobile home park ordinance. Neither Huffman nor the Westhoffs appeared at the meeting to express their remaining concerns. Nevertheless, the city council amended the proposed ordinance to exempt existing mobile home parks—such as those owned by Huffman and the Westhoffs—from many of the ordinance's requirements. In particular, the ordinance—as amended—does not require existing owners to comply with provisions of the new ordinance dealing with paved roadways, storage lockers, lighting requirements, storm shelters, and garbage collection. However, these exemptions will not be applicable if existing mobile home parks are sold to new owners in the future.
Ultimately, the city council voted to pass the proposed mobile home park ordinance—as amended—at the November 17 meeting. Accordingly, the city council published the mobile home park ordinance—officially referred to as Ordinance 892—in its official newspaper in December 2014. The new ordinance became effective on July 1, 2015.
On June 18, 2015, Huffman and the Westhoffs filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the City of Maize. Specifically, Huffman and the Westhoffs asserted that the mobile home park ordinance exceeded the City's police powers and violated their constitutional rights to due process under law. The petition also contained a claim for damages, but the district court dismissed that claim without prejudice on September 22, 2015. After completion of discovery, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the City asserted that the mobile home park ordinance passed by the city council is constitutional because it "addresses matters of public health, safety and welfare [including the] health, safety and welfare of the residents of the mobile home parks."
In their memorandum in opposition of the motion for summary judgment, Huffman and the Westhoffs argued—among other things—that the mobile home park ordinance is an unconstitutional exercise of the City's police powers as well as a violation of their equal protection rights.
The district court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion on March 31, 2016. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the district court took the motion under advisement. In an order entered on May 26, 2016, the district court granted summary judgment to the City. In the order, the district court determined that the "City of Maize properly enacted the ordinance in question under its police powers and the ordinance is presumed valid and constitution." In addition, the district court concluded that the "enactment of the ordinance passes the rational basis test" and that "[s]ufficient due process was afforded [Huffman and the Westhoffs] including notice and an opportunity to be heard."
On June 8, 2016, the district court filed a journal entry, in which it entered judgment in favor of the City with costs assessed against Huffman and the Westhoffs. A few weeks later, Huffman and the Westhoffs filed a motion for adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. They also filed a motion to stay enforcement of the mobile home park ordinance. At a hearing on both motions held on July 15, 2016, counsel presented oral argument and the district court denied the motion to stay the enforcement of the ordinance. In a journal entry entered on July 20, 2016, the district court denied the motion for adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. In doing so, the district court expressly adopted the City's statement of uncontroverted facts. The district court also determined that there were no issues as to any material fact nor had Huffman and the Westhoffs established a violation of a legal duty owed by the City.
On appeal, Huffman and the Westhoffs contend that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the City of Maize. In particular, they argue that there is a dispute of material fact regarding the constitutionality of the mobile home park ordinance enacted by the City. They also argue that the ordinance violates their right to equal protection because owners of mobile homes are treated differently than the owners of on-site built homes. In response, the City of Maize asserts that the district court's granting of summary judgment was appropriate. Specifically, the City argues that the district court properly found as a matter of law that the mobile home park ordinance was an appropriate exercise of its police power and that there has been no equal protection violation.
The Kansas Supreme Court recently stated the well-known standard of review relating to summary judgments in Creegan v. State , 305 Kan. 1156, 391 P.3d 36 (2017). In Creegan , our Supreme Court found:
" " 305 Kan. at 1159, 391 P.3d 36.
See also K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60–256(c)(2).
Furthermore, the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance is a question of law, over which we have de novo review. City of Wichita v. Hackett , 275 Kan. 848, 853, 69 P.3d 621 (2003). When determining the constitutionality of an ordinance, we are required to (1) presume that the ordinance is constitutional; (2) resolve all doubts in favor of validating the ordinance; (3) uphold the ordinance if there is a reasonable way to do so; and (4) strike down the ordinance only if it clearly appears to be unconstitutional. In the process, we resolve all doubts in favor of an ordinance's constitutionality. Hence, those who assert the unconstitutionality of a municipal ordinance—in this case Huffman and the Westhoffs—have a heavy burden to meet because we have the duty to uphold the constitutionality of ordinances if it is possible to do so. 275 Kan. at 853, 69 P.3d 621.
In fact, we must search for ways to uphold the constitutionality of municipal ordinances. City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway Co–Op, Inc. , 298 Kan. 540, 544, 316 P.3d 707 (2013). Likewise,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Wichita v. Trotter
...which we exercise plenary review. See City of Wichita v. Hackett , 275 Kan. 848, 853, 69 P.3d 621 (2003) ; Huffman v. City of Maize , 54 Kan. App. 2d 693, 697, 404 P.3d 345 (2017).Before addressing the merits of Trotter's constitutional claims, it is helpful to provide some background on th......
-
Sola-Morales v. State, 118,451
...of a party's findings because the findings merely restate what the court has already said itself. E.g., Huffman v. City of Maize , 54 Kan. App. 2d 693, 703, 404 P.3d 345 (2017). In those cases, we admonish the court for not making its own findings but ultimately affirm the decision because ......
-
State v. Young, 120,126
...same presumptions and standards of review apply when determining whether an ordinance is constitutional. Huffman v. City of Maize , 54 Kan. App. 2d 693, 697-98, 404 P.3d 345 (2017). Young bears the burden to overcome the presumption of validity and show that the ordinance and corresponding ......