TOPEKA — The Kansas Supreme Court waded into a four-year-old dispute about ownership of a purebred Cane Corso show dog with a decision Friday that identified procedural blunders by a Wyandotte County District Court judge and a subsequent mistake by the Kansas Court of Appeals.
Justice Evelyn Wilson authored the decision affirming the Court of Appeals’ ruling that District Court Judge William Mahoney erred in 2020 by improperly deciding merits of the ownership case without proper notice to both parties who came together to argue about a preliminary injunction.
The Supreme Court concluded the Court of Appeals took a step toward correcting the problem in 2023, but faltered by not remanding the conflict back to district court. The justices said the district court judge bit off more than he could chew and must take up the case again to consider the rift through the lens of proper procedure, Wilson’s opinion said.
“It is legal error and thus an abuse of discretion for a district court to expand the scope of a hearing beyond the extent specified by adequate, clear and unambiguous notice given to all parties before the hearing begins,” the opinion said. “When the improper expansion of the scope of a hearing results in prejudice to an affected party, the error is reversible.”
The conflict has pitted Betsy Shauck, breeder of Oscar the show dog, against Dave Jennings and Emily McLeod, who raised the dog since he was a puppy. Shauck claimed ownership, but Jennings and McLeod petitioned the district court for an order granting them title to Oscar. Shauck submitted a counterclaim alleging breach of contract and sought a preliminary injunction against Jennings and McLeod.
Mahoney, the district court judge, released a ruling that went beyond the injunction to include decisions of fact on merits of all issues pending in the lawsuit, including Oscar’s ownership, contract disputes and damages. He awarded the dog to Shauck, a decision that blindsided Jennings and McLeod.
“The court clarified no further evidence or hearings would occur,” Wilson’s opinion said. “The case was over.”
Jennings and McLeod surrendered the dog to Shauck, but also claimed the district court violated their due process rights by deciding the entirety of the case after a hearing that was supposed to be about a preliminary injunction.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Jennings and McLeod. However, instead of sending the case back to the district court, the Court of Appeals analyzed ownership interests in Oscar and concluded the dog was the joint property of Shauck and Jennings.
Wilson’s opinion says the Supreme Court concurred with the Court of Appeals regarding the district court’s prejudice against Jennings and McLeod, but concluded the Court of Appeals went a too far by trying to settle the ownership squabble. Such a fact-finding mission was the duty of the district court, the opinion said.
“In a nutshell,” Wilson said, “without informing the parties, the district court’s decision retroactively changed practically everything: The elements to be proved, the burden of proof on each element, and the party obligated to carry the burden on each element.”
