Skip to content

TOPEKA—Kansas Court of Appeals judges will hear appeals by videoconference Monday, August 10. The oral arguments will be livestreamed on YouTube.

Judge Stephen Hill is the presiding judge and is joined by Judge Thomas Malone and Senior Judge Richard Walker for the August 10 docket.

9 a.m. August 10, 2020

Appeal No. 120,054: Denise Ann Roenne, Jeanette Marie Miller, Mark Benton Miller and Justin Miller v. Lawrence Bradley Miller and Amy Starr Miller

Rooks County: This action involves a testamentary trust that held royalty interests in certain oil leases. The beneficiaries of the trust were five siblings—the parties to this suit. The defendant, Brad Miller, was also named the trustee. The four plaintiffs sued Brad and his wife after learning Brad had conveyed all the trust assets to himself. The district court ruled Brad did not breach his fiduciary duties as trustee because the trust gave him absolute discretion over the trust. The plaintiffs appeal from that judgment.

10 a.m. August 10, 2020

Appeal No. 121,012: In the Matter of the Marriage of Nancy B. Poggi and Joseph T. Poggi

Sedgwick County: After granting the couple a divorce, the district court entered orders related to the division of property, child support, and spousal maintenance. On appeal, Joseph argues the district court made insufficient written findings to support: 1) the amount of child support awarded; and 2) its decision to award retroactive child support. Nancy cross-appeals, arguing the district court erred by granting Joseph's motion to alter or amend the judgment in which Joseph requested credit for direct expenses Nancy says were not requested at trial. Nancy also contends the district court erred by granting Joseph's motion to modify spousal maintenance and child support amounts; she argues there was insufficient evidence to support the modification.

1:30 p.m. August 10, 2020

Appeal No. 121,842: James T. Krause and Patricia Ann Vanlear v. James M. Kerns and Christine C. Kerns

Johnson County: Krause and Vanlear entered into a contract to purchase a home from the Kernses. As part of the contract, the Kernses provided a disclosure that purported to list any problems, or lack thereof, with the home. Krause and Vanlear sued the Kernses, alleging they failed to disclose, or misrepresented, various problems with the home. The parties settled the case, and the Kernses assigned their rights under their homeowner insurance policy to Krause and Vanlear. Krause and Vanlear attempted to garnish the insurance company based on the judgment that resulted from the settlement. The insurance company, American Automobile Insurance Co., moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no coverage for the Kernses' misrepresentations or omissions. The district court agreed and granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment. Krause and Vanlear appeal the order granting summary judgment.

Find a District Court

Back to top