Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
G & S Investment Co. v. Close
Citations: 240 Kan. 48; 726 P.2d 1317; 1986 Kan. LEXIS 306Docket: No. 58,007
Court: Supreme Court of Kansas; October 30, 1986; Kansas; State Supreme Court
The court opinion delivered by Lockett, J. concerns a dispute between G. S Investment Co. Inc. (plaintiff) and Stuart and Mona Close (defendants), who jointly owned 480 acres of farmland in Thomas County. Following a breakdown in their relationship, Glen Close, representing G. S, petitioned for partitioning the property under K.S.A. 60-1003. The district court ordered the property sold after commissioners determined it could not be partitioned without causing harm. G. S was the successful bidder, but disputes arose over the disbursement of sale proceeds due to conflicting claims about farming expenses. During a hearing to determine the disbursement, no evidence was presented, and the judge rendered a decision based solely on trial briefs. The Closes subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that they were denied the opportunity to present evidence. The trial court ultimately denied their motion but amended the judgment concerning one expense. The Closes appealed to the Court of Appeals, which acknowledged the initial error of the trial court in not holding an evidentiary hearing but concluded that this error was rectified when evidence was presented at the new trial hearing. The Closes contended that the Court of Appeals erred by treating the motion hearing as a full evidentiary hearing, arguing that it improperly shifted the burden to them to disprove the judge's earlier findings. The central issue is whether a subsequent evidentiary hearing after a statutory violation can cure the original error of not conducting the required hearing. K.S.A. 60-259(a) allows a court to open a judgment and take additional testimony upon a motion for a new trial, primarily to correct prior errors. In this case, both parties had the opportunity to present evidence at the hearing for the Closes' motion for a new trial. The judge, however, limited the evidence to issues related to a specific agreement from 1982, stating he would not consider evidence outside of that agreement. After hearing the evidence, the judge concluded that nothing presented changed his mind regarding the original judgment from November 1984. The Closes did not dispute the judge's authority to open the judgment but argued they were denied a fair hearing because they were required to prove the judge's original decision was incorrect. They contended that a proper hearing should allow both parties to establish their claims by a preponderance of the evidence. While errors that do not affect substantial rights do not warrant a reversal, the court determined that the Closes did not receive a fair hearing, as they were unfairly tasked with disproving the judge's original ruling and faced limitations on the issues that could be considered. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the previous decisions and remanded the case for a new hearing with a different judge assigned to ensure fairness.