1 NOT DE S I G NA T ED F OR P U B L I C AT IO N

No. 1 2 2

, 000

IN THE C O U RT OF A PPEALS OF T H E S T A TE OF KAN S A S

In the Matt e r of the M a rriage of

P HY LL I S J. P E A S E

, A p p ell ee

,

a nd

B E NJ A M I

N C. P E A S E

, A p p ell a n t

.

MEMO RA ND U M O P I NION

A ppe a l fr o m R il e y D i s t r i c t C ou r t ; J OHN F. B OSCH

, j u d g e. Opi n i on f i l ed A pr i l 3 0

, 2021. A ff

ir m ed.

Robert S. J

o ne s

, o f N o r t o n

, Wa s s e r m an, J o n es & K e ll y

, L

. L

. C

., o f S a l i na, f or ap p e l l a n t

.

Jona t h an S t e r

n be r g

, of J o n a t han S t e r n b e r g

, A tt o r n e y

, P. C ., of K a n s a s C it y

, M i ss o u ri

, and S a ndy

N o r r i s , of L awson N orr i s S or en s en, L L C

, o f K a n s a s C i t y

, M iss our i

, f o r a p p e ll ee.

Be f ore B U S ER

, P.J., A T C H E S O N

, J., and B U R G E SS

, S.J.

P E R C UR I

A M : The Ril e y Co u n t y Di s trict Cou r t entered a d i vor c e d e c r ee in late

Ju l y 2 0 18 ending the m arriage be t w e en P h y llis J. and Be n j a min C. P e ase. The dec r ee

incorporated a len g t h y proper t y se t tl e ment a g r e e ment the t wo a p p r o v ed earlier th a t

m o nth. B e nj a m i n l ater challenged h ow in c om e tax re f un d s f or 2 0 17 should be

apport i oned un d er the a gre e m ent. T he dist r ict c ourt f ou n d the agre e m e nt u n a mbi g uou s l y

divided the re f

unds e q u al l y b e tween P h y ll i s a n d Benj a m i n. Be n j a m i n has appeale d

. W e

agree w i th t he d istr i ct c ourt and a f f i r m

. W e a l s o consider a nd g r ant P h y l l i s' m o t ion f or

attorn e y f ees f or the a p peal.2

The te r ms o f the d i vor c e indicate B enj a m i n h a d been the p r i ma r y w a g e earner i n

the marria g e. At lea s t i n recent y e a r s, the c oup le paid e s ti m ated i nc o m e ta x es on a

quarter l y b a sis. P h y l lis f

iled a petit i on f

or d ivorce in M a y 20 1 7 to end the 3 0

- y ear

m a r riage. In J anua r y 20 18, B e nj a m i n pe r s o n a l l y made a f inal qua r te rl y p a y me n t of

est i m ated i nc o m e t a x e s f

or 2017 a nd l a ter m a d e an a d diti o nal p a yme n t when th e y

requested an e xtens i on to f ile their 2017 i n c om e tax returns. T h ose p a y m e nts to t aled

either $80, 0 00 or $90, 0 00. Benj a min has cit e d each f igure at di ff

er e n t times in t h e

proceedin g s

, but t h e p r ecise a m ou n t d oes not b e ar on the c ontroll i ng legal issue. P h y ll i s

and Ben j a min recei v e d a re f

und of $107, 5 64 o n their 20 1 7 f ederal in c ome taxes a nd a

re f und of $ 19,822 on th eir state i n c o m e ta x es f or a total of $127

, 38 6

.

w a y : The 17

- p age prope r t y s ettl e m ent a g re e m e n t a d dressed the 20 17 i n c o me taxes t h is

" H

. 2017 T a x R e t u r n : P e t i t i o ne r a n d R e s p o nd e n t a g r ee t o fil e a j o i n t f

e d e r a l a n d st a

t e

i nc o m e t ax r e t u r n f

o r t he t a x y e a r 20 1 7. Ea c h p ar t y a g r ees t o c o op e r a t e i n p r ov i d i n g any

and a l l r ec o r ds n ee d e d i n o r der t o p r op er l y c o m

p l e t e a n d f

il e s uc h r e t u r n as r e q u i re d by

l aw. T h e t a xes d u e i n c o nn e c t i on w it h t h e f i li ng o f s uch r e t ur n s ha l l be p a i d on e

- ha l f ( 1 / 2 )

by P e t i ti o ne r a n d o n e

-

ha l f (1 / 2) by R e s p onde n t

, s u b j e c t t o t he u ti li za ti on o f t he f u n ds

co n t a i ned i n t he Em

i g r a n t D i r e c t a c c o u n t ( s ee § I

. I .) i n t he ap p r ox i m a t e a m ount o f

$1,400.00.

" T h e P e t i t i o n e r ' s o b li ga ti on t o pay on t he 2 0 17 t ax r e t u r n ( f ed e r a l and s t a t e ) s h a l l

be li m it ed t o no m

o r e t han $25,000.0 0

, a ft e r t he a pp li c a t i on of t he E m i gr ant D i re c t

acco u n t p r oc ee d s . A n y a m

ount d u e i n ex c e s s o f t h a

t s u m ( $ 25,000

. 00) s ha l l b e p a i d by

t he R es pon d en t

. A n y r e f

u n d t h a t m a y b e due s h a l l b e d i v i ded o n e

- ha l f ( 1 / 2 ) t o t h e

Pe ti ti on e r a nd one

- h al f ( 1 / 2 ) t o t he R e s p o n de n t ."

A f ter the re f unds w e re received, B e nj a m in f il e d a m o t ion with t h e d i st rict court a r guing

that und e r t he s e ttl e m e nt agre e ment h alf of b o th the last quarter l y p a y m e nt and t he3

extens i on p a y m e nt he m a de s hou l d be o f f set against the porti o n of t he inc o m e t ax re f u n d

due P h y l l i s. P h y l lis o p posed the motion.

A f ter heari n g the ar gu m e nts of t h e la w y er s a n d reviewi n g vari o us d o c u m ents, t he

district cou r t issu e d a b rief journal e nt r y f i n di n g the prope r t y settl e m e nt agre e ment

plain l y call e d f

or the 2 017 inc o m e tax re f u nds to be div i ded e q ua l l y b etween P h y llis a n d

Benj a m in a nd orde ri ng th e m di s t r ibuted a c co rd ing l y

. The d i strict co ur t denied B e n ja m i n ' s

m o tion f or recon s i dera t ion. Benj a min has ap p e aled.

A proper t y settl e m e nt a gre e m ent in c orpo r a t e d into a divo r ce d e cree fu nctions b o th

as a contract b etween t he divorci n g parties a n d an ord e r o f the di s tri c t court. See D o zier

v. Dozier

, 252 Ka n

. 1 0 35, 1 0 39, 8 50 P .2 d 789 (1993); In r e Ma r r i age of Kno l l

, 52 K an.

App. 2d 9 30, 9 39

- 40, 3 81 P.3d 4 90 ( 2 0 1 6). W e, there f ore, a pp l y t h e r ules of con t ract

interpre t a ti o n to the P e a ses' p ro per t y s e ttl e m e nt agre e me n t

. As a ge n eral m a tter, a

contract sh o uld be c o n s trued to gi v e e ff ect t o t he intent of the part i es consistent with the

plain m ean in g of t h e l a nguage u s e d and c o ns i dering the wh o le of the agreement.

Thorou g h bred A ss ocs. v. Kans a s C i ty Ro yalty C o.

, 2 97 K a n. 11 9 3, 1 2 06, 308 P

. 3d 12 3 8

(2013) (w h ole agr e e m e n t ) ; Sham b e r g, Jo h ns o n & Be r

g m an, C ht d. v. Oliv e r

, 2 89 K a n.

891, 900, 2 2 0 P. 3 d 333 (2009) (pl a in lan g u a g e ). If the ope r ati v e la n g u age is

un a m bigu ou s, th o se wo rds nec e s s ari l y g o vern t he rights a nd o b l i gat i o n s of the

contrac t ing parti e s.

A contract i s un a mbig u ous "if the langua g e

. . . is clear and c a n be c a rr ied out as

written." S i m on v

. Na t i onal Fa rm ers O r gani z ation, Inc

. , 250 K a n. 67 6, S y l. ¶ 2, 829 P

. 2d

884 (1 9 92 )

. Conv e rse l y

, a n a m bi g uous c ontr a ct "must c ontain p rovi s ions or la n guage of

doubt f ul or con f lic t ing m e a ning." 250 K a n. 6 7 6, S y l. ¶ 2. T y pic a l l y

, t he words u sed in a

contract sh o uld be giv e n their c om m on or cus t oma r y mea n ing. Pf e if e r v. Feder

a l E x pre s s

Corpora t i on

, 297 K a n. 547, 550, 3 0 4 P. 3 d 12 2 6 (2013); Go l d M i ne I n vestments v. Mount

Vernon Fi r e Ins. C o.

, 4 8 Kan. A p p. 2d 8 1 8, 8 2 4, 300 P

. 3 d 1113 ( 2 01 3 ). Ambigu i t y then4

arises on l y if "the f ace of the inst ru m ent l e av e s it genuin el y unce r tain which o n e of two

or m ore m ea nin g s i s t h e proper m ea ning." Ca t holic Di o c e se of D o d ge City v. Ra y me r

,

251 Ka n

. 6 89, 69 3

, 840 P.2d 456 (199 2 ); K i n c aid v. De ss

, 4 8 K a n. A pp. 2d 64 0

, 6 4 7, 2 98

P.3d 358 ( 2013) ( "A c o ntract is a mb i guo u s w h en the w o r d s

. . . m a y b e underst o o d in t w o

or m ore w a y s."). W he t her a contract i s a m b i g uous p r es e nts a qu e sti o n of law, as d oes t h e

interpre t a ti o n of an un a m b iguous contract. See Osterha u s v. To t h

, 291 Kan. 759, 7 68,

249 P. 3 d 888 ( 2 0 11); L evin v. Maw Oil & Ga s

, 290 K a n. 928, S y l. ¶ 2

, 234 P. 3 d 805

(2010) ( " The inter p r e t a tion and l e gal e ff ect of a written i n str u m e n t a r e m at t ers of law.").

W i t h those princ i p les i n m ind, we turn to t he l anguage of t he prop e r t y settl e m e n t

agre e m ent. W e n eed n o t belabor the point or u ndu l y exte n d our a na l ysis. In t he section

devoted to the 2 0 1 7 in c ome taxes, t he agre e m e nt state s : "A n y re f und that m a y be d ue

shall be d iv ided o n e

- h a lf (1/2) to [ P h y lli s ] and one half (1 / 2) to [ Ben j a m i n]." It i s hard t o

c o m e u p w i th a clearer enunciation of a parti c u lar intent a nd res u lt. Ph y l l i s and B e nj a m in

agreed to d i v i de e q ual l y a n y re f und f r o m th e ir 2017 inc o m e tax e s. At the t i m e t he y

d ra f t e d and a ppr o ved t he agre e m en t

, th e y d id not know whether t he r e would be r e f unds.

But unc e rt a in t y ab o ut a f

uture event does n ot i nject a mbi g ui t y in t o w hat contract in g

parties have c l ear l y a g r eed to do sh ould t he e v ent occ u r.

The agre e m e nt a lso c o vers how a n y t axes that m ight ha v e be e n d ue when t he

returns we r e f

iled w ou l d be paid. P h y llis a n d Benj a m in w o uld d ivide the tax lia b il i t y

equal l y w i t h a cap o f $ 25,000 o n P h y ll i s' o b l i gation. Th os e p r o v isi on s re f er to " taxes d ue

. . . with t h e f

iling of s u ch return" a n d the " o bl i gation to pa y on t h e 2 0 17 tax retu r n [ s]."

The lan g ua g e c o vers a n y taxes ow ed a s s ho w n in the tax retur n s

— an a m o unt d e te r m i ned

a f ter crediti n g the est i m a t ed taxes alrea d y pa i d and a n y other pre pa y m e nt s

. Ag a in, wh e n

P h y llis a n d Be n

j a m in s igned the pr oper t y sett l e m e nt a g re e m ent, th e y did not k n ow if t h e y

would owe t a xes. T ho s e prov i sio n s wou l d h a v e disposed of that c ont i ngen c y had it

arisen.5

So the agre e m e n t i n cl u des c o m pl e menta r y te r m s addr e s s ing h o w r e f unds wou l d be

divided ( if there we r e a n y ) and h o w f inal t ax l i abili t ies w ould be pa i d (if there were a n y ).

The agre e m e nt, thu s

, c overs wha t e ver f ina n c i al i m

pact t h e y et

- to

- be f

iled 2017 i nc o m e

tax returns w o uld h ave on P h y llis a n d B e nj a m i n.

The agre e m e nt does n o t include s o m e adj u s tm ent or c redit to Ben j a mi n f or the

f ourth

- quar t er est i mat e d taxes he p a i d or t he p a y ment he in cluded wi t h the exten s ions to

f ile the 20 1 7 income t a x returns. B ut the o m i s sion do e s not cr e ate an ambigu i t y

. Rather, it

is proper l y const r u e d t o indicate t he part i es r e a ched no ag r e e ment a f f o r d ing Be n

j a min a

credit f or t h ose p a y m e n ts as part of the o v era l l reconciliat i on of t h e f i n ancial ass et s and

liabilities a ssocia te d w i th the m arr i age. I n a r r i ving at that rec o nci l iat i on, P h y l l i s a nd

Benj a m in o b viou s l y t o ok account of the 2 017 taxes. T his is n ot a sit u ation in w h ich the

parties to a pr o per t y s e t tl e m ent agr e e m ent a p p arent l y o ve r l o o ked a p a rticular asset or

liabili t y

. Moreove r

, B e nj a m in kn e w h e h a d m ade th o se t a x p a y m e nts when he a n d P h y l l is

negotiated a nd agre e d t o the prop e r t y s e ttl e m e nt in mi d

- 2018. If he h a d wanted s o m e

c r e d i t f or th e m

, he s h o uld not ha v e s ign e d o f f on an agre e m e nt th a t d i d not inco rp orate

such an acc o mmod a ti o n.

In short, t h e distri c t c o urt got it r i ght.

A f ter this c a se h a d b e e n set on o u r Nov e mber 2019 dock e t, P h y l lis t i m e l y f iled a

m o tion to recover h er a ttorn e y f ees f or the a p p eal. Under Supr e me C o urt Ru l e 7

. 07(b)

(2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 5 0 ), on whi c h P h y l l is rel i es, we m a y awa r d at t o r n e y f ees on appeal

if the distr i ct cou r t had the author i t y to aw a rd f ees. P h y l l i s cites a pro v ision in th e

proper t y se t tl e m ent ag r eement t h a t requ i res h e r and Benj a min to " i n d emni f y " ea c h ot h er

f or "a n y s u m s w h ich e i ther is requ i red to p a y

, including c o u rt co s ts a nd attor n e y f ees, as a

result of the f ailure of t he other to p a y the i nd e btedness to be p a id ac c ording to t he te r ms

and condit io ns of t his Agre e m en t

. " Benj a m i n has f iled n othing i n re s ponse to P h y lli s '

m o tion.6

In the abse n ce of a r e s p onse, we p r es u me t he p rovision in the a g r ee m e nt entails

attorn e y f ees P h y ll i s i n curred to p r o t ect her c o ntractual ri g ht to ha l f th e 2017 in c o m e tax

re f unds. Her share i s a r guab l y an i ndebte d ness Benj a min owed, a nd h e declined t o p a y

the f ull a mount wh en h e sought a r educt io n fo r the prepaid taxe s

. W e have no b a s i s to

conclude the par t ies i n t ended s o m e t h ing e l se, although t he i n d e m n i f i cation lan g u a ge

doesn ' t ex e mpl i f y what m i g ht be c onsi d er e d p l ain Engli s h.

P h y llis re ta ined a Kan s as Ci t y la w y e r who sp e cialized in a ppell a te p r actice to

handle the a ppeal. T he la w y er has s ub m it t ed a detailed a f f i davit, t i m e records, and other

m a t erials in sup p o r t of the a t torn e y f ee requ e s t

. The la w y er has a s t a n dard hou r l y rate of

$400 and s pent 22

. 5 h o urs on t h e a ppeal, y iel d ing a f ee re q uest of $ 9

, 000. W ith o ut a n y

objection fro m Be n

j a m in to the a m o u nt or the supporting in f o r matio n

, we have r e vie w ed

the f ee requ e st f

or g e n e ral reasonab le ness c o n s istent with the f act o rs i n Rule 1. 5 ( a) of the

Kansas R u les of P ro f

e s sional Co n duct ( 20 20 Kan. S. C t

. R. 2 9 7); s e e Conso l v e r v. Ho tz e

,

306 Ka n

. 5 61, S y l

. ¶ 2, 395 P. 3 d 405 ( 2 0 17). W e f ind the reque s t to be reason a b l e and,

there f ore, gr a nt P h y l l is' m ot i on f or attorn e y f

e es on appeal in the a m o u nt of $9, 0 00.

The dist r ict court i s a f

f ir m e d, and P h y llis P ea s e ' s m ot i on f or $9,000 i n attorn e y

f ees is grant e d.