Heller v. Heller

Citations: 30 Kan. App. 2d 481; 45 P.3d 859; 2002 Kan. App. LEXIS 365Docket: No. 86,991

Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas; January 31, 2002; Kansas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The appeal involves a dispute between brothers Robert S. Heller and John E. Heller regarding their family farm. Robert petitioned for a partition of the farm and for rent from a lease, which the trial court granted. John counterclaimed for an accounting of the profits from the farm, but the court denied his claim. John appeals the denial. 

After their father's death in 1972, the brothers and their mother, Rose, inherited the farm and divided income and expenses through an oral agreement. Over time, Robert distanced himself from the farming operation, while John took over. Despite John’s concerns about income distribution, the original agreement remained unchanged. In 1994, Rose transferred her interest in the farm to John, and in 1996, Robert conveyed part of his interest to John for the purpose of financing their mother's care. Later that year, they entered a lease agreement where John would pay Robert rent in exchange for using Robert's remaining interest. However, John failed to pay rent, and Robert did not pay his share of taxes, leading to the lease's expiration in 1999. John continued to farm the land as a holdover tenant.

John's counterclaim sought an accounting for the preceding 12 years, but the trial court ruled it was barred by the statute of limitations. John argued that the limitation period was tolled, referencing a previous case where the Kansas Supreme Court recognized tolling under specific circumstances. However, the court concluded that John could have sought an accounting before the statute of limitations expired and that forcing Robert to initiate a partition action was unnecessary. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling.

John asserts that a just and equitable accounting is necessary due to the absence of a clear agreement before the 1996 lease, which he claims prevented him from filing suit. However, he had the opportunity to seek a partition or accounting prior to 1996 and chose to enter into the lease with Robert, altering their relationship. John contends that Robert's one-fourth interest in the farming operation should not allow him to receive one-third of government payments, yet this allocation was agreed upon by both parties. Their relationship was informal, relying on an oral agreement for expense contributions and profit sharing. John failed to formalize this arrangement and is now requesting a court accounting for the years before the formal lease, along with a revised agreement. He argues that if he was dissatisfied, he should have sought a written agreement earlier. 

John claims the statute of limitations does not apply as this is an equitable action per K.S.A. 60-1003(d), which grants the court discretion in partition actions but does not address limitations. Citing the Yeager case, he notes that in equitable actions, laches may apply instead of statutes of limitations, although a legal right does invoke the statute. In Yeager, the court determined that a cause of action accrues when the right to maintain legal action arises. Here, upon the change to a landlord-tenant relationship in 1996, John's cause for accounting accrued, and his demand filed four years later was time-barred. 

John further argues that he can raise accounting claims as a counter against Robert's rent claims, referencing K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-213(d), which protects cross-demands despite statute limitations. However, the court found this statute inapplicable since Robert's rent claim stemmed from the lease, while John's accounting request was based on their prior cotenancy arrangement. The district court ruled the claims were distinct due to the lease altering their relationship, thus affirming that John could only seek a setoff for claims arising post-lease.