Court Opinion

ID: 9548420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:03:09.60914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:55.231259
License: Public Domain

Herd, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully disagree with the holding of the majority. The controlling issue is whether Tobin Construction Company was entitled to have the trial court consider its motion to amend the judgment. Tobin served timely notice on .the other parties but failed to get to the courthouse in time to properly file its motion to amend with the clerk. Tobin then attempted to use K.S.A. 60-205(e) by filing the motion with the judge. Since the judge could not be found, Tobin’s courier gained entrance to the judge’s office and left the motion on the judge’s desk. This was accomplished within time. The judge then treated the motion as timely filed and amended the judgment. I think Tobin’s actions complied with the law. If not, K.S.A. 60-206(b)(2) can be relied upon. It authorizes a trial judge to extend the time in which a motion to alter or amend judgment may be filed by the filing of a motion after the original prescribed time. While a formal motion to extend filing time was not made *438by Tobin, the deposit of the motion on the judge’s desk within the filing period and the treatment of the motion by the judge as having been timely filed are as strong a request as a formal motion and illustrate a good faith attempt to obtain an amendment to the judgment. Tobin’s actions were in substantial compliance with the statutes.
A highly technical construction of these statutes serves no meritorious purpose. The case is on appeal. The trial court ruled the judgment should be amended. The entire case should be presented to the appellate court. I would reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court.
Schroeder, C.J., and Prager, J., join in the foregoing dissenting opinion.