NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION In the ... - Kansas divorce

Inc. v. Pottroff, 275 Kan. 20, 44, 59 P.3d 1003 (2002) ("Judicial discretion is abused onlywhen no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. [Citationsomitted.]") There is nothing in the record to indicate why Lula's motion was not filedearlier. Obviously, Lula's concern regarding Conley's annual $500 contribution to theretirement account should have arisen the first year following the divorce. Lula stated shesought therapy to address issues which plagued her marriage 2 years after the divorce, butshe waited 7 years to file a motion to set aside the PSA.Clearly, Conley relied upon the agreement in conducting his affairs. However,whether he should be able to reap the benefits of the agreement in the balance of Lula'sallegations is debatable. Nonetheless, the court has an interest in the finality of divorcejudgments. See Boldridge, 29 Kan.App.2d at 582, 29 P.3d 454 ("the finality of a divorcedecree is favored in this state by statute and by case law"). At the time this courtentertains Lula's request for relief, the divorce decree has been final for over 9 years.Also, as noted in Boldridge, the finality of a PSA, which has been incorporated in adivorce decree, is clearly provided for under K.S.A.2002 Supp. 60-1610(b)(3), whichstates that a PSA is not subject to subsequent modification by the court except asprescribed by the agreement or as subsequently consented to by the parties for mattersother than those pertaining to the legal custody, residency, visitation, parenting time,support, or education of the minor children. See 29 Kan.App.2d at 582, 29 P.3d 454.Here, the agreement did not provide for and Conley has not expressed any consent tosubsequent modification.Lula does not even argue the court erred in ruling that she did not file her motionwithin a reasonable time. Moreover, she does not contend that the PSA expresslyprovided for modification or that Conley consents to subsequent modification. Instead,her argument that this court should direct the "trial judge to interpret and clarify thecontradictions and ambiguities inherent in the Agreement" appears to be the sameargument rejected by the district court. Based on the district court's ruling that Lula didnot file her 260(b) motion within a reasonable time, she appears to be precluded from anyrelief.Affirmed.