Opinion ID: 2637359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Abram's Purported Cross-appeal

Text: Abram argues in a purported cross-appeal that Valley should be precluded from categorizing the plow and nurse tank as implements of husbandry. Rather, Abram contends that the equipment should be categorized as commercial equipment, causing the plow and nurse tank to fall outside of the statutory exceptions. Abram filed no notice of cross-appeal. Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this argument. See Douglas v. Lombardino, 236 Kan. 471, 490, 693 P.2d 1138 (1985). We also observe that Abram effectively admitted that the plow and nurse tank were implements of husbandry at trial. In addition, this issue is presented for the first time on appeal. See Lindsey v. Miami County National Bank, 267 Kan. 685, 690, 984 P.2d 719 (1999). Reversed and remanded.