Opinion ID: 2508359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue 3: Did Mid-Continent have a separate, valid claim for conversion of the $50,000 in its bank account?

Text: Finally, Mid-Continent argues that even if the conversion action for the check is prohibited under the UCC, the action is allowed for conversion of the $50,000 drawn on the check out of Mid-Continent's bank account. It offers no authority for this proposition. We have held that [s]imply pressing a point without pertinent authority, or without showing why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority, is akin to failing to brief an issue. `Where the appellant fails to brief an issue, that issue is waived or abandoned.' [Citation omitted.] McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc., 275 Kan. 1, 15, 61 P.3d 68 (2002). Additionally, to the extent Mid-Continent's short argument could be characterized as showing why its point is sound despite a lack of supporting authority, we again look to Grand Rapids Auto Sales, Inc. v. MBNA America Bank, 227 F. Supp. 2d 721. There, similar to Mid-Continent's position, Grand Rapids Auto Sales argued that, though it was the drawer of the checks and the court had held the action for conversion of the checks was barred by § 3-420, it was not precluded from maintaining a conversion claim for the funds because its claim is for conversion of the proceeds of the checks rather than the checks themselves. 227 F. Supp. 2d at 729. The court granted the defendant bank's motion for summary judgment, holding: This argument must be rejected because the UCC does not draw a distinction between checks and the proceeds received from the checks. Amzee Corp. 2002 WL 1012998, at . 227 F. Supp. 2d at 730. Finally, although Capital Homes' response brief argues that its holder in due course (HDC) status under K.S.A. 84-3-302 also provides a defense, we will not address the HDC issue for several reasons. First, Capital Homes did not file a cross-appeal of this adverse ruling by the trial court. It is therefore barred. See Butler County R.W.D. No. 8 v. Yates, 275 Kan. 291, 299, 64 P.3d 357 (2003) (K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-2103[h] requires an appellee to file a cross-appeal in order to present adverse rulings for appellate review). Second, given our holdings regarding conversion, the issue regarding holder in due course is moot. Affirmed.