Wood v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs

181 Kan. 76, 309 P.2d 671 (1957)

 

RULE:

Findings of fact supported by substantial competent evidence are conclusive and will not be disturbed on appellate review even though the record discloses some evidence which might have warranted the trial court in making findings to the contrary.

A presumption of validity attaches to a judgment until the contrary is shown and the burden of establishing its invalidity is upon those alleging it.

FACTS:

Appellants. J.K. Wood and his wife executed a right of way grant to the Mission Township Main Sewer District No. 1, granting a strip of land for purposes of a permanent right of way. The right of way grant included a provision that allowed the taxpayers to hook up to a sewer without charge. The Woods subsequently executed a second right of way grant identical to the previous grant except for the omission of the provision allowing the taxpayers to connect to the sewer without charge. The sewer was built and a lateral sewer district was established. Based on the second right of way grant, the sewer district apportioned the cost of the lateral sewer district by assessing the Woods. The Woods objected on the basis of the first right of way grant. The Woods’ filed an application to enjoin the Mission Township Main Sewer District No. 1 from spreading a special assessment on the Woods’ land for the cost of a lateral sewer district. Johnson District Court (Kansas) overruled the enjoinment, and the Woods sought a review of the judgment.

ISSUE:

Was the special assessment by the Mission Township Main Sewer District No. 1 on the Woods’ land for the cost of a lateral sewer district proper?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court of Kansas upheld the trial court's decision that execution of the second grant vacated the first grant and allowed for assessment against the Woods for costs of creating the lateral sewer district. According to the Court, there was no showing that the second grant was only intended to correct a mistake in the first grant, and therefore, the second grant vacated the first.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.