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.

Ward v. Hahn

Court of Appeals of Kansas

July 28, 2017

Cheri Ward, f/k/a Cheri R. Hahn, Appellee,
v.
Clifford Hahn, Iris A. Hahn, and Kirk L. Hahn, Appellants.

         SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

         1. Any attempt by one state to give to its courts jurisdiction beyond its own limits of real property situated in another state is an usurpation of authority and all such judicial proceedings are void.

         2. In a divorce proceeding, the courts of one state cannot directly affect the legal title to land situated in another state unless allowed that effect by the laws of the state in which the land is situated. Kansas does not allow that effect.

         3. A sister state can indirectly affect title to land located in Kansas by ordering a litigant over whom it exercises personal jurisdiction to transfer title to another. If that party does not comply, the court may enforce its order by holding the disobedient party in contempt.

          4. When granting "comity, " courts of one state give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another, not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and respect.

         5. Comity differs from the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution in that a state court has discretion to enforce a foreign judgment or order as a matter of comity but must give credit to a foreign judgment or order that is subject to full faith and credit without inquiry into the merits of the action.

         6. It is appropriate to exercise comity when a court recognizes the rights upon which a decree of a sister state is based and decides that the enforcement of such rights does not violate any principle of public policy of the forum court's state.

         7. Generally, the determination of whether to exercise comity is a matter of district court discretion that will be reversed only on a determination that discretion was abused.

         8. When public policy is not violated, the general rule is that a court should exercise comity over a foreign judgment or order to avoid expense, harassment, and inconvenience to the litigants.

         9. Kansas public policy is reflected in the laws of our State as found in our constitution, our statutes, and our judicial decisions.

         10. A Kansas district court may not enforce, under the principle of comity, a Nebraska district court's order purporting to directly transfer legal title to land situated in Kansas because doing so would violate Kansas public policy.

         Appeal from Osborne District Court; Preston Pratt, judge.

          Richard E. Dietz, of Dietz & Hardman Law Office, of Osborne, for appellants.

          Terry L. Rogers, of Terry L. Rogers Law Firm, of Lincoln, Nebraska, for appellee.

          Before Gardner, P.J., Pierron, J., and Burgess, S.J.

          ...


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.