Kansas Supreme Court
IN RE JOSHUA T. MATTHEWS
NO. 120,924—SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
FACTS: After a stipulation was made, a hearing panel found that Matthews violated KRPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(g) (conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness to practice law), and Supreme Court Rule 211(b) (failure to file answer in a disciplinary proceeding). Matthews failed to satisfy the CLE requirements for the 2017 reporting year. In an attempt to come in to compliance, Matthews enrolled in a day-long program in Missouri. While attending the live programming, Matthews watched on-demand CLE programs over the course of five hours. The affidavits submitted showed that Matthews attended more than eight hours of CLE in one day, which is not permitted by Kansas rules. When questioned, Matthews initially denied watching video on-demand programs while also attending in-person programming. After his inaccuracies were questioned, Matthews self-reported his conduct to the disciplinary administrator.
HEARING PANEL: Matthews stipulated to the rule violations. Matthews had prior rule violations and the panel found dishonest actions after lying about his attendance. Based on the nature of the misconduct, the disciplinary administrator recommended that Matthews receive a public censure. Matthews asked that he be informally admonished.
HELD: The hearing panel's findings of fact and conclusions were accepted. In light of his prior discipline, the court rejected Matthews' request for an informal admonition. The court accepted the disciplinary administrator's recommendation for published censure.
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
IN RE KEVIN P. SHEPHERD
NO. 120,875—SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
FACTS: A hearing panel determined that Shepherd violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property), 1.15(d)(1) (preserving client funds), 1.16(a)(1) (withdrawing from representation), 8.1(a) (false statement in connection with disciplinary matter), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Complaints arose regarding Shepherd's conduct after he failed to file an appellate brief, causing the appeal to be dismissed. Despite repeated promises that he would seek to have the appeal reinstated, Shepherd failed to act. Shepherd also had business checks returned for insufficient funds in diversion cases. This prompted an audit of his bank accounts, which revealed irregularities.
HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel found evidence sufficient enough to sustain violations of the KRPC. When considering the appropriate discipline, the panel noted that Shepherd had a history of prior offenses, including one from 2009 which resulted in a three-year suspension of Shepherd's license. There were also substantial mitigating factors present, including mental health struggles which contributed to the misconduct. Shepherd made restitution to his clients and enjoys the support of his local bench and bar. The disciplinary administrator recommended that Shepherd be indefinitely suspended. Shepherd asked that he be placed on probation, and he began working on some of his proposed probationary terms prior to the hearing. The hearing panel determined that Shepherd's dishonest conduct could not be cured by probation. Rather, the hearing panel recommended that Shepherd be suspended for two years, and that he be allowed to apply for reinstatement after one year.
HELD: The hearing panel's findings of fact and conclusions were deemed admitted. At the hearing, citing Shepherd's notable progress, the disciplinary administrator asked that Shepherd be indefinitely suspended but that the suspension be stayed to allow Shepherd to serve a five-year term of probation. The court found that Shepherd's misconduct was too serious to be cured by probation. A majority of the court imposed a two-year suspension, but stipulated that Shepherd should be allowed to seek reinstatement after one year. Other members of the court would impose either a more or less severe punishment.
Kansas Court of Appeals
DRYWALL SYSTEMS, INC V. A. ARNOLD OF KANSAS CITY
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,091—SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
FACTS: A. Arnold entered a five-year lease for part of a building which was owned by BMJ. There were other tenants using part of the building, so before A. Arnold could use the space, it needed to have a partition wall built. Drywall Systems, Inc. submitted the winning bid for the project. Drywall completed the work, but A. Arnold did not pay and Drywall sued both A. Arnold and BMJ for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and a mechanic's lien foreclosure. The district court found for Drywall on the breach of contract action. But it refused to award prejudgment interest and attorney fees because BMJ, the property owner, was not a party to the contract and A. Arnold, who was a party, was not an "owner" as defined by the Kansas Fairness in Private Construction Contract Act. Drywall appealed.
ISSUE: (1) Liability under the Act
HELD: Drywall did prevail on a contract claim under the Act. But the clear and unambiguous language in the Act shows that only an "owner" can be liable for prejudgment interest and attorney fees. It is undisputed that A. Arnold is not the owner because it only holds a leasehold interest in the property. Without status as an owner, Drywall cannot recover from A. Arnold.
STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 16-1802(e), -1803, -1803(d), -1803(e), -1804, -1805, -1806
CENTRAL RV V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
FRANKLIN DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,744—SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
FACTS: A travel trailer insured by Safeco Insurance was damaged in an accident in Oregon. Safeco obtained a salvage title from the State of Oregon which carried a "TOTALED" designation. Central RV bought the trailer from Safeco. When Central RV titled the vehicle with the State of Kansas it received a rebuilt salvage title. Central RV asked the Department of Revenue to reconsider and give it a clean title. The Department of Revenue refused, so Central RV filed suit hoping to force a title change. The district court sided with the Department of Revenue, and Central RV appealed.
ISSUE: (1) The type of title required
HELD: The trailer met the Kansas statutory definition for a rebuilt salvage vehicle that should receive a rebuilt salvage title. The fact that the salvage status was issued by another state does not keep the trailer from being a rebuilt salvage vehicle. In fact, the statute exists to prevent people from title washing vehicles which were totaled in other states.
STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-127, -135, -126(ll), -126(mm), -126(qq), -126(rr), -197, -197(b)(2), -197(b)(5)
IN RE MARRIAGE OF THRAILKILL
GRAHAM DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
NO. 118,246—SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
FACTS: Doug and Denise Thrailkill were both in the military, although Doug continued his career until he retired as a commissioned officer. Because of the length of his service, Doug began receiving retirement pay as soon as he retired. Doug worked a civilian job for a bit, but ultimately quit and received military disability. Denise filed for divorce in 2016. The proceedings were bifurcated and the decree was handed down before the property settlement was complete. After a hearing on property settlement issues, the district court equally divided the parties' retirement pay. The court awarded maintenance to Denise and ordered Doug to pay half of the balance on a loan that was taken out to help finance their son's education. The district court also had to address Doug's Survivor Benefit Plan, which involved a survivor benefit for a spouse after a military member's death. Doug appealed.
ISSUES: (1) Authority to rule on Survivor Benefit Plan, (2) calculation of maintenance and child support, (3) Doug's obligation on the student loan, (4) postjudgment issues
HELD: After a 1986 statutory amendment, a divorce court can order a service member to retain his or her former spouse as the Survivor Benefit Plan beneficiary, even after divorce. Because Doug was married to Denise when he began receiving retirement pay, Denise was included in spouse coverage. And now, because of the divorce, Doug can elect former-spouse coverage for Denise. There is no statutory limitation to a state divorce court's ability to make orders regarding former-spouse coverage. The district court must consider all income when making maintenance and child support decisions. A portion of each party's retirement pay must be considered as income. In addition, the maintenance award served to equalize the parties' income for the next eight years. Denise borrowed $22,000 towards her son's educational expenses. At the time of the hearing on financial matters, the balance was $11,000. The student loan was correctly treated as a marital debt. The district court correctly ordered each party to pay half of the remaining balance. Doug cannot appeal issues involving postjudgment orders because they were not mentioned in the notice of appeal, and the court does not have jurisdiction to consider them.
STATUTES: 10 U.S.C. § 1447, § 1448, § 1450, § 1450(f)(3); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 23-2801(a), -2802(b), -2902(a), -3001
BROWN V. TROBOUGH
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,501—SEPTEMBER 27, 2019
FACTS: Katy Brown went into labor in September 2015. Her labor was managed by Dr. Schuchmann, a resident. Dr. Trobough was the on-call physician; as such, he was also Dr. Schuchmann's faculty advisor and supervisor. During Katy's labor process, even though he was informed that Katy had a high risk pregnancy, Dr. Trobough left the hospital and was updated by Dr. Schuchmann via text message. Dr. Trobough eventually arrived at the hospital 10 minutes before Katy's son, Carter, was born. Unfortunately, Carter was critically ill when born and suffered from lack of oxygen. Dr. Trobough later texted another physician that during labor, nurses were only monitoring Katy's heart rate and not Carter's, missing the fact that he was in distress. Katy and her husband sued Drs. Schuchmann and Trobough and the hospital for negligence. The hospital and Dr. Schuchmann settled. After that was done, the Browns were given permission to amend their petition to include as defendants Dr. Teply, Lincoln Center, the medical practice, and the Kansas University Medical Education Foundation. Dr. Teply was the training site director for KU Medical School at Lincoln Center. The district court granted Lincoln Center's motion to dismiss, finding that it was barred as derivative by K.S.A. 40-3403(h). Dr. Teply's motion for dismissal was similarly granted after the district court found that Dr. Teply had no independent duty to Carter.
ISSUE: (1) Whether claim is barred by K.S.A. 40-3403(h)
HELD: The plain language of K.S.A. 40-3403(h) bars Brown's claim against Dr. Teply. The statute applies regardless of whether the plaintiffs seek to apply a corporate negligence theory. Any claim against Dr. Teply, even if it seeks to hold him liable for his failure to enforce the resident supervision rule, is derivative of the other doctors' alleged negligence. Had Drs. Schuchmann and Trobough not allegedly injured Carter there would be no claim against Dr. Teply. As a result, K.S.A. 40-3403(h) prevents Brown from bringing suit against Dr. Teply.
STATUTE: K.S.A. 40-3401(f), -3403(a), -3403(h)
constitutional law—criminal law—JUveniles—sentences—statutes
state v. N.R.
reno district court—affirmed
NO. 119,796—september 27, 2019
FACTS: 14-yr.-old N.R. was adjudicated a juvenile offender in 2006. Magistrate granted probation and ordered registration under Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) as a sex offender. Prior to the 5-year registration period expiring, the legislature amended KORA to require lifetime registration for N.R.’s age and offense. N.R. was charged in 2017 of failing to register. He moved to dismiss, arguing lifetime registration violated ex post facto and cruel and unusual constitutional protections. District court denied the motion based on controlling Kansas Supreme Court precedent regarding lifetime registration requirements. N.R. appealed, arguing KORA’s lifetime registration requirement as a sex offender is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. He also argued his sentence was illegal because the magistrate judge lacked authority to order him to register.
ISSUES: (1) Constitutionality of registration requirement—juveniles, (2) KORA registration ordered by magistrate
HELD: District court did not err in finding the registration requirement constitutional as applied to juveniles. Kansas courts have repeatedly held that KORA offender registration is not punishment, and that a registration requirement is not part of a defendant’s criminal sentence. State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32 (2015), is distinguished by the mandatory postrelase supervision ordered in that case being part of the juvenile’s sentence. N.R. showed no reason why registration should be considered punishment for juveniles. Test in State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192 (2016), is summarized and applied finding no showing the outcome would have been different had it involved a juvenile instead of an adult.
KORA itself, rather than a court order, imposes the duty to register upon sex offenders. Any lack of magistrate judge’s authority is immaterial because the duty to register arises by statute, falls on N.R., and is not part of N.R.’s sentence.
STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 20-302b(a)(6), 22-4902(b), -4906(h), 38-2356(b); K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-4906(h)(1); K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-3502(a)(2), -3502(c); K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq.,
appeals—constitutional law—criminal law—first amendment—statutes—torts
state v. smith
douglas district court—reversed and sentence vacated
no. 119,919—september 27, 2019
FACTS: Perez lived across the street from Smith who accused Perez of sexual misconduct with Smith’s child. District court denied Smith a final protection from stalking (PFS) order against Perez, but granted Perez a final PFS order against Smith that included a special prohibition against Smith making any direct or indirect disparaging statements in public regarding Perez being a child molester. While entering her residence, Smith told her husband who was standing in their driveway to come inside away from the pedophile. Perez and family heard and recorded that statement. Smith charged with violating the PFS order. She moved to dismiss, arguing the PFS order was an unconstitutional, content-based restriction on her free-speech rights, and that criminal prosecution under K.S.A. 2017 Supp.21-5924 for violating the order was unconstitutional as applied to her. She appealed on the same constitutional claims, and also argued insufficient evidence showed that her statement was made in public. State asserts the constitutional claim is an impermissible collateral attack on the earlier PFS order, and State questions whether the PFS order is a content-based restriction.
ISSUES: (1) Sufficiency of the evidence, (2) procedural bar to constitutional question, (3) First Amendment, (4) content-based restriction
HELD: Sufficient evidence shows that Smith made the statement in public. Her Fourth Amendment argument concerning privacy of curtilage of her home is not applicable. Even with a curtilage analysis, her words carried beyond that curtilage and invaded curtilage of Perez’ house.
Smith’s appeal is not procedurally barred. She is appealing a criminal judgment with a statutory right to appeal, and her free speech issue is now ripe. Even if she could have raised her First Amendment objections when the district court issued the PFS order, there is no bar to her raising them now.
Smith’s speech warrants First Amendment protection. State’s invocation of the defamation category of speech that may be restricted fails. Cases involving libel are distinguished from isolated slander in this case. Even if slanderous statement could be assumed as defamatory speech, no evidence that Smith’s statement was in fact defamatory. No showing that Smith’s statement was knowingly false, and that Smith’s statement caused any harm to Perez’ reputation.
The PFS order in this case is a content-based prior restraint on speech, thus presumptively unconstitutional. State fails to show the PFS order serves a compelling state interest. Purpose of Kansas stalking statute is to protect innocent citizens from threatening conduct that subjects them to a reasonable fear of physical harm. The statutes expressly excludes constitutionally protected activity from its definition and does not reflect any State interest in preventing slander. Under circumstances in this case, the PFS order, as applied solely to speech which did not subject a person to a reasonable fear of physical harm, was an improper prior restraint of Smith’s constitutional right to freedom of speech. Conviction is reversed and sentence vacated.
STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5427, 22-3602(a), 60-31a02, -31a02(d). -31a02(d)(1), -31a02(d)(2), -31a05(a); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5924