Title: In Re Sandstrom

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

224 Kan. 293 (1978)
580 P.2d 1310
In the Matter of the Estate of Thad M. Sandstrom, Deceased;
FRED MITCHELSON, Special Administrator and Executor, Appellee,
v.
MILDA R. SANDSTROM, Appellant.
No. 49,267

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 30, 1978.
Russell Shultz, of Wichita, argued the cause and Robert D. Hecht, of Scott, Quinlan & Hecht, of Topeka, was on the brief for the appellant.
Robert A. McClure, of Colmery, McClure, Funk, Letourneau & Entz, of Topeka, argued the cause and James P. Rankin and Michael W. Merriam, of the same firm, were with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, Milda R. Sandstrom, from an order granting an injunction restraining and enjoining her from the sale, disposal, mortgage, encumbrance, or other disposition, without prior court approval, of any property held in joint tenancy, or any property of the deceased, or any property jointly accumulated. The action was brought by plaintiff-appellee, Fred Mitchelson, special administrator of the estate of Thad M. Sandstrom. Under the terms of the will appellant was to receive all property and was named executor with Mitchelson named alternate executor. At the time of the order, appellant had been charged with feloniously killing Thad Sandstrom, her husband.
On appeal, appellant attacks the constitutionality of K.S.A. 59-513 which provides:
The appellee contends that the matter is not properly before this court for procedural reasons. The procedural issues will be dealt with first. It is appropriate to establish the time frame of events. All dates are in 1977 and are summarized as follows:
*294 May 3  Thad M. Sandstrom died testate.
The transcript of the hearing on May 17, 1977, has been carefully reviewed. At the beginning of the hearing the trial court inquired as to the position of Milda Sandstrom with regard to the application for an injunction. Mr. Hecht represented the appellant at the hearing. Mr. McClure and Mr. Entz represented the special administrator. The following responses appear to the judge's inquiry:
"Is that correct, sir?
MR. HECHT: "We would like to 
No evidence was presented by either party on the application. It is abundantly clear that the order was entered by mutual consent as a temporary measure to maintain the status quo until the rights of the parties to any particular property could be determined. The transcript, further, clearly shows both parties could apply to the court, during the duration of the injunction, for such additional orders as might be necessary. The trial court's ruling was as follows:
After the court made its ruling, the balance of the proceeding was as follows:
"MR. HECHT: Of course.
"We are adjourned."
There is no claim any application was made for release of property by appellant.
Although the general rule is that a party is bound by a judgment entered on stipulation or consent and may not appeal from a judgment in which he or she has acquiesced, there is a well-recognized exception in those cases when the party attacks the judgment because of lack of consent or because the judgment deviates from the stipulation or when the party's attorney had no authority to settle the case and did so without the agreement and consent of his client. (Reimer v. Davis, 224 Kan. 225, Syl. 2, 580 P.2d 81 [1978].) No such exception is shown herein.
Looking through form to substance we have before us an order entered with no objection that was a temporary measure to maintain the status quo until a determination could be had on the merits. Further, the issues raised by the appellant on appeal were not before the trial court for determination.
The order on appeal was not an appealable order. The appeal *299 must be dismissed. In view of this conclusion, the other issues raised need not be considered.
The appeal is dismissed.