Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bunge Milling, Inc. v. City of Atchison

Court of Appeals of Kansas

August 23, 2013

BUNGE MILLING, INC., Appellee,
v.
CITY OF ATCHISON, Kansas, Appellant.

Page 1065

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1066

Syllabus by the Court

1. In order for a city to have authority to annex property under K.S.A. 12-520(a)(1), the boundary survey of the property must be filed by the owner of the property or an agent.

Page 1067

2. K.S.A. 12-519(e) defines the term " platted" as " a tract or tracts mapped or drawn to scale, showing a division or divisions thereof, which map or drawing is filed in the office of the register of deeds by the owner of such tract." If the legislature had meant to allow anyone to file a qualifying " plat" for annexation purposes, then the legislature would have omitted the words " by the owner."

3. A land surveyor is required to file a survey under K.A.R. 66-12-1(c) (2006) and K.S.A. 74-7003(m), independent of any client's direction. However, such filing does not necessarily create an agency relationship between the surveyor and the land owner.

4. The party asserting that an agency relationship exists has the burden of proving the relationship with substantial evidence that is clear and convincing.

5. An express agency exists if the principal has delegated authority to the agent by words which expressly authorize the agent to do a delegable act. An implied agency may exist if it appears from the statements and conduct of the parties and other relevant circumstances that the intention was to clothe the agent with such an appearance of authority that when the agency was exercised it would normally and naturally lead others to rely on the person's acts as being authorized by the principal.

6. The test utilized by this court to determine if the alleged agent possesses implied powers is whether, from the facts and circumstances of the particular case, it appears there was an implied intention to create an agency, in which event the relationship may be held to exist, notwithstanding either a denial by the alleged principal or whether the parties understood it to be an agency.

7. An agency is implied if, from statements of the parties, their conduct, and other relevant circumstances, it appears the intent of the parties was to create a relationship permitting the assumption of authority by an agent which, when exercised, would normally and naturally lead others to believe in and rely on the acts as those of the principal. While the relationship may be inferred from a single transaction, it is more readily inferable from a series of transactions. An agency will not be inferred because a third person assumed that it existed, nor because the alleged agent assumed to act as such, nor because the conditions and circumstances were such as to make such an agency seem natural and probable.

8. If a principal does not promptly repudiate an agent's unauthorized action, the action will be presumed to be ratified by the principal. The key to ratification is the principal's knowledge of the unauthorized action. Without knowledge of the action, the principal cannot ratify the act.

Patrick E. Henderson, of Henderson Law Office, of Atchison, for appellant.

Richard V. Eckert, of Topeka, and Quentin E. Kurtz, of Stumbo Hanson, LLP, of Topeka, for appellee.

Before HILL, P.J., POWELL, J., and HEBERT, S.J.

POWELL, J.

The City of Atchison (City) appeals the district court's decision setting aside its ordinance establishing the annexation of Bunge Milling, Inc.'s (Bunge) property under K.S.A. 12-520(a)(1). The City argues Midland Surveying (Midland) acted as Bunge's agent when Midland filed a boundary survey of Bunge's property with the register of deeds. As the City would only have had the authority to annex Bunge's property if the owners had filed the survey under K.S.A. 12-519(e), the filing of a boundary survey by Bunge's agent would meet this requirement. Bunge argues its property was not subject to annexation because Midland was not its agent for the purpose of filing the survey.

Because we agree with the district court that Midland was not acting as Bunge's agent when it filed a boundary survey of Bunge's property with the register of deeds, meaning that the survey had not been filed by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.