Steele v. Guardianship and Conservatorship of Crist

• Decision Date: 30 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. 66759,66759
• Parties: Larry D. STEELE and Steele Cattle, Inc., Appellants, v. The GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP of Ruben L. CRIST, a/k/a R.L. Crist, an incapacitated person, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1107

840 P.2d 1107

251 Kan. 712

Larry D. STEELE and Steele Cattle, Inc., Appellants, v. The GUARDIANSHIP and CONSERVATORSHIP of Ruben L. CRIST, a/k/a R.L. Crist, an incapacitated person, Appellee.

No. 66759.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Oct. 30, 1992.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is a well-settled rule of law that the construction of a written instrument is a question of law, and the instrument may be construed and its legal effect determined by an appellate court. An appellate court has the same authority as the district court to construe a written agreement.

2. A consent decree is essentially a settlement agreement subject to continued judicial policing.

3. Consent decrees are construed largely as contracts but are enforced as orders. A consent judgment represents a compromise between parties who have waived their right to litigation. The parties, in the interest of avoiding the risk and expense of suit, have given up something they might have won had they proceeded with the litigation. For these reasons, the scope of a consent judgment must be discerned within its four corners and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties. The explicit language of the judgment is to be given great weight. Deference is to be paid to the plain meaning of the language of the judgment and the normal usage of the terms selected. A consent judgment should be strictly construed to preserve the bargained-for position of the parties.

4. Court jurisdiction over consent judgments is usually retained for an indefinite period, and, unless the judgment has an expiration date written into its terms, it remains in effect until it is dissolved.

5. A consent decree is a final judicial order and operates as an injunction. This injunctive quality compels the court to: (1) retain jurisdiction over the decree during the term of its existence; (2) protect the integrity of the decree with its contempt powers; and (3) modify the decree should changed circumstances subvert its intended purpose.

6. An issue is res judicata when there is a concurrence of four conditions: (1) identity in the things sued for, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity in the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.

7. Under the law of the case doctrine, once issues are decided by the court, these issues should not be relitigated or reconsidered unless they are clearly erroneous or unless some manifest injustice has been imposed. This doctrine is based on public policy favoring an end to litigation and encouraging dispute resolution by preventing continued re-argument of decided issues.

8. The automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (1988) creates a moratorium on any commencement or continuation of proceedings or enforcement of a prior claim against the debtor. It does not stay the debtor's obligation to assert his own rights in a timely manner.

9. The doctrine of laches is an equitable principle designed to bar stale claims. When a party neglects to assert a right or claim for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time and the lapse of time and other circumstances cause prejudice to the adverse party, relief is denied on the grounds of laches. The mere passage of time is not enough to invoke the doctrine. For laches to apply, the court must consider the circumstances surrounding the delay and any disadvantage to the other party caused by that delay.

Jim D. Mills, of Hope, Mills, Bolin, Collins & Ramsey, Garden City, argued the cause and was on the briefs, for appellants.

William E. Metcalf, of Metcalf & Justus, Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs, for appellee Marie Crist.

Phyllis F. Wendler, of Friesen & Wendler, P.A., Garden City, argued the cause and was on the briefs, for appellees Dennis Crist and Jeff Crist.

HERD, Justice:

Larry D. Steele and Steele Cattle, Inc., appeal the denial of a motion to strike an accountant's report, which the district court treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment or as a motion for relief from a judgment. In an unpublished opinion filed April 3, 1992, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. 827 P.2d 1238.

Larry Steele and Ruben Crist had mutual business dealings since the 1960's. Crist operated as Finnscott Cattle Company, Inc., Farm Lease, Inc., and Finnback. Steele operated as Steele Cattle, Inc., Steele Farms (a partnership), and Walkinghood, Inc. Steele was also chairman of the board of the First National Bank of Tribune.

Ruben Crist married Marie Weishaar in 1961. He had been previously married and had two children, Dennis Crist and Sondra Crist Crook. Jeff Crist is a grandson of Ruben Crist. In 1982, Ruben was diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. Steele and Marie petitioned the Finney County District Court to find Ruben incapacitated, place his property in a conservatorship, and appoint them co-conservators of the conservatorship estate. The court appointed Steele, Marie, and Jeffrey Whitham as co-conservators of Ruben's estate and appointed Marie as Ruben's guardian.

The Crist children opposed the appointment of Marie and Steele as co-conservators and of Marie as guardian. An underlying dispute existed as to whether proper accountings had been made in the various business dealings between Steele and Ruben Crist.

On March 4, 1985, a bench trial was commenced to determine whether Steele and Marie should continue as co-conservators. After more than two days of evidence, however, the parties reached an agreement. The parties were charged with the responsibility of drafting an acceptable journal entry reflecting the agreement, which they were unable to do. The court then drafted a journal entry and filed it on October 4, 1985. Paragraphs 6 through 8 of the journal entry state:

"6. That any party hereto, may, at their option and within ninety (90) days of the filing of this Journal Entry, notify the Court and all other parties to this proceeding of their intent to engage a certified public accountant or C.P.A. firm, which is independent of this action, to conduct a financial examination of the business entities and/or personal accounts of Ruben Crist, a/k/a R.L. Crist and Larry Steele. Said accountant(s) shall, without unnecessary delay, and within a reasonable period of time, present a report to this Court of his/their findings and conclusions in all cattle feeding operations or other joint ventures conducted by and between R.L. Crist and Larry Steele during the fiscal years 1977 through 1981 inclusive.

"In the event a substantial deviation appears in the auditor's report, which deviation shall be defined as a discrepancy of $35,000.00 or more, then, and in that event Larry Steele shall forthwith tender into the office of the Clerk of the District Court of Finney County, Kansas, such sums equal to the amount of the reported discrepancy, together with the amount representing the accountant's fee for services rendered in preparing said audit, which fee shall be assessed to Larry Steele. The Clerk of the Court shall thereafter disburse said sums as the Court shall direct.

"In the event that a substantial deviation does not appear in the auditor's report (i.e., less than $35,000.00), then, and in that event the amount representing said accountant's fee shall be the expense of the party requesting and engaging said accountant and/or firm for said examination. Provided further, that should said examination reveal a discrepancy on the part of Larry Steele, of less than $35,000.00, said Larry Steele may be held liable and accountable to the estate of Ruben Crist in the reported amount.

"7. To facilitate the provisions of paragraph 6, supra, the parties agree to cooperate fully and provide all records and documentation which the examining accountant or C.P.A. shall, in his sole discretion, deem necessary to complete the required report. It is further agreed that no independent accountant or C.P.A. shall be employed by any party, or any interested party, for the purpose of contesting the accuracy or validity of the findings and conclusions of the accountant selected to perform said audit and examination. The findings and conclusions of the auditor selected, as provided herein, shall be determinative of the conditions set forth in paragraph 6 of this Journal Entry.

"8. It is further stipulated and agreed by Dennis Crist, Jeff B. Crist and Sondra Crist Crook, that they shall forbear from any and all litigation against Larry Steele, his agents, servants, employers, employees or business entities arising from his conduct, activities or dealings in connection with and/or in relation to, Finnscott Cattle Company, Inc., Farm Lease, Inc., Ruben L. Crist or the Estate of Ruben L. Crist."

Steele and Marie in their capacity as co-conservators filed a notice of appeal from this journal entry but later withdrew it. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by the Court of Appeals on December 20, 1985. On December 28, 1985, Dennis and Jeffrey Crist gave written notice of their intent to engage an independent C.P.A. firm to conduct a financial examination as provided by the district court's journal entry.

The C.P.A. firm chosen, Birney & Company, completed and filed its report with the court on November 21, 1987. The accounting firm concluded that Steele Cattle, Inc., owed Finnscott Cattle Co., Inc., $405,556.40. The accounting firm noted the report was not made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and, therefore, Birney & Company did not express an opinion on the cattle transactions for the period January 1, 1977, through December 31, 1981. In late March 1988, the district court notified the clerk of the district court that not all of the parties had received a copy of the report and requested the clerk to send copies to all counsel of record who had not received the report, including Steele's...