LCL, LLC v. Falen
Decision Date | 17 February 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 115,434,115,434 |
Citation | 390 P.3d 571,53 Kan.App.2d 651 |
Parties | LCL, LLC, v. James W. FALEN, in his capacity as Sole Trustee of The James W. Falen Living Trust U/A dated April 30, 2007; Julie D. Falen; Gregory A. Falen; and Maryl M. Wesolowski (Defendants/Third–Party Plaintiffs), Appellants, v. Rice County Abstract & Title Co., Inc. (Third–Party Defendant), Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Gordon B. Stull and Josh V.C. Nicolay, of Stull, Beverlin, Nicolay & Haas, LLC, of Pratt, for appellants.
Jeffrey C. Baker, William P. Denning, and Kaitlin M. Marsh–Blake, of Sanders Warren & Russell LLP, of Overland Park, for appellee.
Before Malone, C.J., Standridge, J., and Hebert, S.J.
The question presented on appeal is whether the applicable statute of limitations precludes James W. Falen, in his capacity as Sole Trustee of The James W. Falen Living Trust U/A dated April 30, 2007; Julie D. Falen; Gregory A. Falen; and Maryl M. Wesolowski (the Falens) from pursuing claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against Rice County Abstract & Title Company, Inc. (RCAT). The district court answered this question in the affirmative and, accordingly, entered summary judgment in favor of RCAT. We agree with the district court with regard to the Falens' claim alleging breach of implied contract. But we find the statute of limitations does not prevent the Falens from pursuing their claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. As such, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of RCAT on those two claims and remand so the case can proceed accordingly.
Plaintiff LCL, LLC (LCL) originally filed this lawsuit against the Falens seeking to quiet title to an undivided one-half interest in mineral rights associated with 203.2 acres of surface farmland in Rice County, Kansas (the subject property). The Falens filed a counterclaim against LCL seeking to quiet title to those same mineral rights, but in their favor. The Falens also filed a third-party lawsuit against RCAT for negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The underlying suit and counterclaim seeking to quiet title ultimately settled. At that point, RCAT filed a motion for summary judgment in the third-party lawsuit based on the statute of limitations. After the motion was briefed, the court granted summary judgment to RCAT, ruling that the Falens were precluded from pursuing the claims alleged in the suit because the statute of limitations on each of them already had expired.
Because the district court granted summary judgment based solely on procedural grounds—the applicable statute of limitation precludes each of the claims asserted—the underlying merits of the Falens' claims of negligence and breach of implied contract are not issues on appeal. Nevertheless, a brief chronology of relevant facts in the record is helpful to our analysis of the procedural issue presented for decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Moore v. Miles (In re Estate of Moore)
-
Doe v. Popravak
...act must cause injury or damage to the plaintiff for the cause of action to accrue. See K.S.A. 60-513(b) ; LCL, LLC v. Falen, 53 Kan.App.2d 651, 660, 390 P.3d 571 (2017), petition for rev. filed March 20, 2017. Sometimes both the negligent act and injury happen at more or less the same time......
-
LCL, LLC v. Falen
...the summary judgment on their negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims to the Court of Appeals. See LCL, LLC, v. Falen , 53 Kan. App. 2d 651, 652, 666, 390 P.3d 571 (2017).The panel reversed RCAT's summary judgment on the negligence claim because, in its view, the Falens did not susta......
-
Balmer Fund, Inc. v. City of Harper
...as argued, it would have at most stayed the running of the statute of limitations to January 15, 2015.45 LCL, LLC v. Falen , 53 Kan. App. 2d 651, 390 P.3d 571, 577 (2017) (citations omitted).46 Id.47 Id.48 Id.49 Further, with regard to Plaintiffs' personal property, Defendant has not presen......