Court Opinion

ID: 9591418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:04:15.694176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:54.343787
License: Public Domain

ALLEGRUCCI, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent. As the Court of Appeals noted, attorney fees became an issue in this case upon the filing of the petition. Since the verdict of the jury mandated the allowance of attorney fees, the judgment was not final until the court determined the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly found that State Farm’s appeal of the district court’s decision was not timely since it did not file a notice of appeal after the district court determined the attorney fees.
The majority finds persuasive the holding in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 100 L. Ed. 2d 178, 108 S. Ct. 1717 (1988), which was that a decision on the merits is final for purposes of appeal even if a request for attorney fees attributable to the case has not yet been determined.
As noted by the majority, although we are not bound by the interpretation in Budinich of the federal statute governing appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982), in Landscape Development Co. v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 197 Kan. 126, 128, 415 P.2d 398 (1966), we recognized that the federal statute was similar to ours and, therefore, federal decisions construing § 1291 are entitled to persuasive weight. 197 Kan. at 128. However, I do not find the decision in Budinich persuasive for several reasons. First, Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(d) provides for costs to be awarded to the prevailing party. The comparable Kansas provision on judgments (K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 60-254) omitted this subsection. 1 Gard’s Kansas C. Civ. Proc. 2d Annot. § 60-254 (1979). Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 58 states that the “entry of the judgment shall not be *380delayed for the taxing of costs.” K.S.A. 60-258(a) contains no similar language. Instead, the Kansas rules provide a separate article on costs, found at K.S.A. 60-2001 et seq. Under K.S.A. 60-2001(d), “other fees and expenses” to be assessed as court costs in addition to the docket fee are to be approved by the court unless specifically fixed by statute. These other fees “shall include, but not be limited to, witness fees, . . . attorneys’ fees, . . . and any other fees and expenses required by statute.” The subsection further provides: “All additional court costs shall be taxed and billed against the parties as directed by the court.” In this case, K.S.A. 40-256 allows an award of attorney fees only if the prevailing party is able to establish that the insurance company “refused without just cause or excuse to pay the full amount” of the loss sought against the insurance company. The award of attorney fees is based not just upon the meritorious nature of plaintiffs claim, but upon the insurance company’s refusal to pay the claim.
Further, the Court in Budinich recognized that attorney fees could be distinguished between those requested pursuant to statutes, causing them to be part of the merits relief, and those specifying that they are to be taxed and collected as costs. 486 U.S. at 201. However, the Court, emphasizing the need for reserving operational consistency and predictability in the overall application of § 1291, chose not to make that distinction in order to fashion a “bright-line” rule.
Finally, we note that on a number of occasions this court has construed the meaning of “final decision” under K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 60-2102(a)(4).
Professor Edward Robinson, commenting upon 60-2102(a)(4), states:
“The court has clearly indicated its position as to the meaning of ‘final’ with respect to an ‘order’ or ‘decision.’ After pointing out that its decisions construing the expression ‘final order’ as it appeared in G.S. 1949, 60-3302 and 3303 became obsolete with the repeal of those sections by the adoption of the new code, the Kansas court ruled that the word ‘final’ is to be given its ordinary meaning and an order or a judgment is to be considered as final if all the issues in the case are determined, not just part of the issues Connell v. State Highway Commission, 1964, 192 Kan. 371, 374, 388 P.2d 637, 641. Likewise a final order is one which finally decides and disposes of the entire merits of the controversy, and reserves no further questions *381or directions for the future or further action: Cusintz v. Cusintz, 1965, 195 Kan. 301, 302, 404 P.2d 164. With the exception of the rare instances for interlocutory appeal provided by K.S.A. 60-2102(b), intermediate and piecemeal appeals which tend to extend and prolong litigation are out of place under the new code whose purpose and policy are to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action: Connell v. State Highway Commission, supra.” Authors’ Comments, § 2102.2, 6 Vernon’s Kansas C. Civ. Proc. § 60-2102 (1967).
In Gulf Ins. Co. v. Bovee, 217 Kan. 586, 538 P.2d 724 (1975), the appellant attempted to appeal from the order of the district court overruling his motion to quash an order of garnishment. In dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we said:
“Under Article 3, § 3 of the Kansas constitution this court has only ‘such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.’ Insofar as it is applicable here that law (K.S.A. 60-2102) provides that an appeal from the district court will lie as of right only from a ‘final decision’ of that court.
“No definition of ‘final decision’ is contained in the statute but this court has previously construed it to mean, ‘one which finally decides and disposes of the entire merits of the controversy, and reserves no further questions or directions for the future or further action of the court.’ Bates & Son Construction Co. v. Berry, [217 Kan. 322, 324, 537 P.2d 189]; Cusintz v. Cusintz, 195 Kan. 301, 302, 404 P.2d 164. See also, Connell v. State Highway Commission, 192 Kan. 371, 388 P.2d 637.....
“As stated in Connell v. State Highway Commission, supra (p. 374), ‘The policy of the new code [of civil procedure] leaves no place for intermediate and piecemeal appeals which tend to extend and prolong litigation. Its purpose is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’ To allow an appeal from an interlocutory order such as is presented in this case would be contrary to the policy of the code and set a precedent for future appeals which would serve only to delay and render more expensive the judicial process.” 217 Kan. at 587.
In the present case, the district court reserved the question of the awarding of attorney fees for further action by the court and, therefore, precluded appeal as of right until that question was resolved. To hold otherwise would require a second appeal of the court’s ruling on the issue of attorney fees, thus resulting in “piecemeal appeals” and extending and prolonging the appeal process. I would decline to adopt the rule as annunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Budinich and affirm the Court of Appeals.