kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

5-28 Appellate Jurisdiction
Topeka v. U.S.D. No. 501, 260 Kan. at 843; Donnini v. Ouano, 15 Kan.
App. 2d 517, 526, 810 P.2d 1163 (1991). However, an exception to
this rule has been recognized when an order granting a new trial under
K.S.A. 60-259(a) or K.S.A. 60-260 is challenged on jurisdictional
grounds. Brown v. Fitzpatrick, 224 Kan. 636, Syl. 2, 3, 585 P.2d 987
(1978); Donnini, 15 Kan. App. 2d at 526.
▪
Post-Judgment
An order overruling a motion to quash an order of garnishment is not
a final, appealable order. Gulf Ins. Co. v. Bovee, 217 Kan. 586, Syl. 2,
538 P.2d 724 (1975). But see K.S.A. 61-3901(c), which authorizes an
appeal from any order overruling a motion to discharge a garnishment
under Chapter 61.
An order amending a sheriff ’s return of service on an execution after
satisfaction of a judgment in the action is a final, appealable order.
Transport Clearing House, Inc. v. Rostock, 202 Kan. 72, Syl. 2, 447 P.2d
1 (1968).
▪
Foreclosure/Redemption
“An order extending a statutory redemption period is a final, appealable
order.” Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Treaster, 13 Kan. App. 2d 305,
Syl. 1, 770 P.2d 481 (1989). See also L.P.P. Mortgage, Ltd. v. Hayse, 32
Kan. App. 2d 579, 87 P.3d 976 (2004).
A judgment of mortgage foreclosure is a final, appealable order if it
determines the rights of the parties, the amounts to be paid, and the
priority of the claims. Stauth v. Brown, 241 Kan. 1, Syl. 1, 734 P.2d
1063 (1987). See also L.P.P. Mortgage, Ltd., 32 Kan. App. 2d at 583-
84.
An order of sale issued in a mortgage foreclosure action is not a final,
appealable order; however, an order confirming a sheriff ’s sale is a
final, appealable order. See Valley State Bank v. Geiger, 12 Kan. App. 2d
485, 748 P.2d 905 (1988).
▪
Miscellaneous
In the absence of exceptional circumstances, remand orders are not
appealable. Holton Transport, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm’n, 10 Kan.
App. 2d 12, Syl. 1, 690 P.2d 399 (1984), rev. denied 236 Kan. 875 (1985).
See also Neal v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 277 Kan. 1, 18, 81 P.3d 425 (2003); NEA-
2013