1 

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION 

No. 124,243 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 

UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/ 

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, 

Appellee, 

v. 

NAJEE ABDULLAH, ET AL., 

Defendants, 

(GOODMATH, INC., c/o SANTOS ORNELAS, REGISTERED AGENT), 

Appellant,

v. 

(TAX SALE PURCHASER), 

Appellee. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; ROBERT P. BURNS, judge. Opinion filed July 22, 2022. 

Affirmed. 

John Ivan, of Shawnee Mission, for appellant. 

Wendy M. Green, senior counsel, Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 

Kansas, for appellee. 

Mary Ann Kancel, of Mary Ann Kancel, Attorney, LLC, of Overland Park, for appellee.

Before ATCHESON, P.J., WARNER, J., and ANTHONY J. POWELL, Court of Appeals Judge, 

Retired. 
2

PER CURIAM: The Wyandotte County District Court ordered and later confirmed 

the forced sale of a drinking establishment and the land on which it sits because the 

owner failed to pay property taxes for an extended period. GoodMath, Inc., the property 

owner, has appealed and alleges constitutional and evidentiary irregularities in the 

proceedings. We find no basis for reversing confirmation of the sale and, therefore, 

affirm the district court.

Santos Ornelas is the sole shareholder of GoodMath and appears to have been a 

principal in overseeing the bar that, at least up to the tax sale in late 2020, was known as 

the Brass Ring. GoodMath had a checkered record in paying property taxes on the Brass 

Ring during the decade leading up to the sale. Ornelas has offered various extenuating 

circumstances for the persistent delinquencies, although they are not legally germane to 

the issues at hand in this appeal. By the time of the tax sale, the delinquency had 

ballooned to about $70,000 including interest and penalties. 

The Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas initiated 

proceedings to sell the property and duly noticed GoodMath (and Ornelas, who was the 

registered agent for the corporation). GoodMath hired a lawyer to represent its interests in 

the sale proceedings. The Unified Government agreed to postpone the sale so Ornelas 

could make a payment on the delinquency and effectively secure more time to bring the 

property taxes current. The district court informed the parties it would otherwise reset the 

property for tax sale. The delinquency remained unsatisfied, so the district court entered 

an order in October 2020 setting a new date for the tax sale. Notice of the sale was duly

published in the Wyandotte County Echo. 

As we indicated, the sale occurred in December 2020, and the district court 

promptly entered an order confirming the sale. The successful bidder has since 

participated in this case and submitted an appellate brief in support of the district court's 

order. GoodMath filed a motion in the district court to set aside the tax sale, raising 
3

multiple objections to the process. The district court held a hearing on the objections in

May 2021 at which Ornelas testified. About three weeks later, the district court filed a 

journal entry denying the objections and again confirming the sale. GoodMath has 

appealed that ruling.

First, GoodMath claims a due process violation on the grounds neither it nor 

Ornelas received actual notice of the rescheduled date for property tax sale in December 

2020. GoodMath contends the lack of notice deprived it of an opportunity to protect its 

interests or otherwise challenge the sale beforehand or to object to the confirmation 

afterward. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires due 

process—fair notice and an opportunity to be heard—before a state government or one of 

its political subdivisions deprives a person of a liberty interest or a property right. The 

purpose is to avert a wrongful deprivation of such an interest or right. State v. Gonzalez, 

57 Kan. App. 2d 618, Syl. ¶ 1, 457 P.3d 938 (2019); see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 

319, 333, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976) ("The fundamental requirement of due 

process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful 

manner.'"). A property owner has a due process right to be heard during tax sale 

proceedings. 

Due process is an especially flexible constitutional concept in that the nature and 

scope of the hearing procedures depend upon the particular interest or right at stake. The 

greater the interest or right the more elaborate the process due before the government

deprivation becomes irrevocable. Gonzalez, 57 Kan. at 623. Constitutionally acceptable 

due process almost invariably includes at least some opportunity to be heard before the 

deprivation, even if there is a more elaborate post-deprivation hearing to correct an 

erroneous government action. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 13-

16, 98 S. Ct. 1554, 56 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1978) (termination of public utility service for 

nonpayment); Carmody v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, 747 F.3d 470, 475 

(7th Cir. 2014) (termination of public employment). 
4

But a due process violation in the ether having no material adverse effect on the 

ground requires no relief and, therefore, commands no remedy. In short, a procedural due 

process violation may amount to harmless error. In re Henderson, 306 Kan. 62, 76-77, 

392 P.3d 56 (2017). We approach GoodMath's due process claim from that angle. We 

assume without deciding that GoodMath was denied a constitutionally required 

opportunity to be heard in October 2020 when the district court set a new tax sale date.

Notwithstanding our assumption, GoodMath has outlined no tangible 

constitutional injury. GoodMath presented its objections to the tax sale to the district 

court after the December 2020 sale and received an evidentiary hearing on them. In turn, 

GoodMath has not shown its opportunity to be heard was somehow inadequate, either by 

unfairly limiting the evidence or arguments on its stated objections or by precluding other 

objections altogether. At the constitutional worst, GoodMath received an adequate due 

process hearing that came later in the tax sale proceedings than it should have. As a 

property owner, the company had a fair opportunity to prove why the sale should not 

have taken place, and the opportunity came before the property was irretrievably lost. 

Any due process violation was, under the circumstances, a matter of timing rather than 

substance and can be no more than a harmless error. 

Apart from the constitutional claim, GoodMath has raised several substantive

factual points on appeal and what it characterizes as an equitable claim for relief:

⦁ GoodMath contends the Brass Ring and the land were consistently over valued 

for property tax purposes. Erroneous appraisals, however, are not a defense to a tax sale 

for delinquent payment. The appropriate remedy is a timely challenge to the appraisal 

itself. See K.S.A. 79-1448. The claim, even if true, misses the mark as a challenge to the 

sale.
5

⦁ At the objections hearing, Ornelas testified that he made a $7,000 payment on 

the property tax liability in May 2019 that the Unified Government never credited. Apart 

from that testimony, neither GoodMath nor Ornelas offered any evidence of the payment, 

such as a cancelled check, a receipt, or other documentation. The Unified Government 

suggested Ornelas may not have understood that any such payment would have been 

applied to interest and penalties before the unpaid principal, so the amount of unpaid 

taxes would not have been significantly reduced. 

Moreover, GoodMath's claim goes to the amount due and not the existence of a 

delinquency permitting the tax sale. Even if a $7,000 payment were uncredited, that 

would not be grounds to void the sale, since the tax liability still would have been more 

than $60,000. At the hearing, Ornelas testified he was prepared to make an immediate 

payment of $20,000 and expected to make additional payments going forward. Again, a 

partial reduction (even a substantial one) in the indebtedness cannot stave off a property 

tax sale. Ultimately, Ornelas' offer effectively established he and GoodMath were not in a 

financial position to satisfy the debt—a key issue before the district court in upholding

the sale. See K.S.A. 79-2803 (property owner may redeem land before tax sale by paying 

amount owed).

⦁ GoodMath argued in the district court that the Unified Government agreed to an 

extended payment plan and to forbear on any tax sale when it agreed to cancel the initial

sale. The district court found that the GoodMath and the Unified Government simply 

agreed to defer the sale to allow Ornelas a limited extension to satisfy the delinquency in 

full. When that didn't happen, the Unified Government could proceed with the tax sale. 

No documentary evidence supported GoodMath's assertion of a payment plan. On appeal, 

GoodMath has not shown the district court erred in its determination.

⦁ GoodMath now contends the district court erred in denying its request for 

"equitable" relief from the tax sale. In making this argument, GoodMath does not rely on 
6

established equitable doctrines, such as promissory estoppel or misrepresentation coupled 

with detrimental reliance. Rather, the company essentially lays out a history of what 

might be considered bad luck contributing to its inability to pay the property taxes. 

GoodMath pointed to a settlement agreement in a civil action in which a third party 

agreed to pay the property taxes on the Brass Ring for 2014 and 2015 and never did. 

GoodMath submitted that trying to enforce the settlement agreement would have been 

cost prohibitive. Likewise, the company submitted the Brass Ring's revenue has dropped 

markedly during the COVID-19 pandemic, impairing its ability to meet various financial 

obligations including the tax liability. 

Although those circumstances suggest GoodMath's failure to pay the property 

taxes may entail less than an entirely deliberate choice to stiff the Unified Government, 

they do not support any recognized equitable doctrine that would excuse the payments.

Misfortune, however undeserved, is not itself a ground for equitable relief. GoodMath 

cites no statutory or case authority calling for a different rule in this case or in property 

tax sales generally. Absent such support, we chalk the argument up to unpersuasive 

wishful thinking. Cf. Garetson Brothers v. American Warrior, Inc., 56 Kan. App. 2d 623, 

647, 435 P.3d 1153 (2019) (argument unsupported by relevant authority or explanation of 

why it should be accepted absent such authority is deemed waived, i.e., effectively no 

argument at all). 

Having examined the points GoodMath has raised on appeal, we find no basis for 

reversing the district court's order denying the motion to set aside the property tax sale. 

The district court's confirmation of the sale stands.

Affirmed.