Court Opinion

ID: 9551387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:52:32.635778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:40.785362
License: Public Domain

Fatzer, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in this court’s judgment of reversal, but I must respectfully dissent *349from the judgment denying the plaintiffs injunctive relief. I would direct the district court to make additional findings. It is manifest from the judgment rendered below that the district court was of the opinion the plaintiffs should be given some relief from the onerous assesments. Inherent in the judgment is the implied finding the system installed was a main sewer since the court ordered the city at large to absorb a much larger portion of the assessments. For the city at large to be assessed a substantial portion of the cost of the system in accordance with the judgment, the district court would have been required to find the system was a main sewer. (K. S. A. 1967 Supp. 12-619.) Despite the fact both parties requested the court to make a specific finding whether the system was main or lateral — the city in its requested findings that the sewers were all lateral, and the plaintiffs in their motion for additional findings that the system was a main sewer — the court refused to specifically find either way, and denied both motions. The evidence on the point was highly conflicting and until a specific finding is made, it is my judgment the case is not ripe for decision, and this court may not assume the sewers installed were all “lateral.” In addition, I would further direct the district court to determine the terms and duration of the Cities Service easement on the Mullins’ property. A city appraiser testified positively that, “In valuing the land, I would have taken into consideration how the easement affected the ground, whether it could be crossed and whether the front footage could be used and whether this would entirely block the use of the ground ... If there was 100 feet under the fence, it could affect the value . . .” The parties stipulated that 100 feet east and west on the Mullins’ land was fenced under the easement. In my judgment, the district court should hear further evidence on this point and if the easement is of a permanent nature, it should determine the value and reassess the property.