kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

Appellate Jurisdiction 5-33
An order of a district court granting or denying class action
certification under K.S.A. 60-223 may be appealed, in the discretion of
the Court of Appeals, if application is made to the court within 14 days
after entry of the order. K.S.A. 60-223(f); Rule 4.01A. The proceedings
in the district court are not stayed by an appeal unless requested and so
ordered by the district court or the Court of Appeals. K.S.A. 60-223(f).
§ 5.21 K.S.A. 60-254(b) – Entry of Final Judgment as to One or
More but Fewer than All Claims or Parties
When there is more than one claim for relief in an action or when
multiple parties are involved, the court can direct entry of final judgment
as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties if the court
expressly determines there is no just reason for delay. K.S.A. 60-254(b). The
Supreme Court has endorsed the following test for determining whether
multiple claims exist: “‘“‘The ultimate determination of multiplicity of
claims must rest in every case on whether the underlying factual bases
for recovery state a number of different claims which could have been
separately enforced.’ [Citation omitted].”’” Gillespie v. Seymour, 263 Kan.
650, 654-55, 952 P.2d 1313 (1998). Different theories involving separate
facts do not necessarily involve distinct claims.
The 254(b) findings must affirmatively appear in the record, preferably
using the statutory language. City of Salina v. Star B., Inc., 241 Kan. 692,
Syl. 1, 739 P.2d 933 (1987). See also State ex rel. Board of Healing Arts v.
Beyrle, 262 Kan. 507, 510, 941 P.2d 371 (1977). The appellate court will
not assume the court made these findings simply because it used the word
“judgment.” Crockett v. Medicalodges, Inc., 247 Kan. 433, 434, 799 P.2d 1022
(1990). Mere reference to K.S.A. 60-254(b) is insufficient. Star B., Inc.,
241 Kan. at 694-96. Such deficiency cannot be corrected by an order
nunc pro tunc, Star B., Inc., 241 Kan. at 697, nor can an order be amended
to include the required findings after an unauthorized appeal has been
filed. Beyrle, 262 Kan. at 510.
When a trial court makes mere reference to K.S.A. 60-254(b), it has
not made “an express determination or an express direction, as required
in the statute; these omissions [are] not mere clerical errors which may
be corrected nunc pro tunc; and the proposed change would enlarge the
judgment as originally rendered and substantially change the effective
date of the judgment.” Star B., Inc., 241 Kan. at 697. When appropriate
2013