WHEN WILL A TRIAL COURT RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR DECISION ON YOUR CASE?

When can a trial court reconsider its prior ruling?

(In re Marriage of Willenberg, 271 Kan. 906)

This case explored whether a trial court has the authority to reconsider its prior rulings and make appropriate amendments when a motion to reconsider is filed. In exploring this issue, the court concluded that pursuant to the rule governing amendments to rulings, the trial court did in fact have the authority to reconsider its previous ruling regarding the award of maintenance.

The respondent (Michael Willenberg) was granted a divorce from the petitioner (Antoinette Willenberg) on 4/26/00. Antoinette’s request for maintenance was denied on 5/5/00. Property division was ordered on the same day. Shortly after receiving the judgment regarding property division and maintenance, Michael filed for bankruptcy. In response to the bankruptcy filing, Antoinette filed a motion to reconsider regarding the denial of maintenance. The district court reconsidered and ordered maintenance of $10,500 to be paid to Antoinette. Michael appealed.

Michael argued that the Court cannot modify the judgment based on his bankruptcy filing 12 days after the decision was entered. Michael reasoned that the court erred in applying K.S.A. 60-259 because it provided grounds for a new trial, none of which were stated by Antoinette. Michael also argued that, because of the automatic stay in bankruptcy, the court lacked authority to modify the ruling. Ultimately, the court held that the district court did, in fact, have the authority to change.

Regarding Michael’s first argument, the court said that it is true that K.S.A 60-259 refers to some provisions relating exclusively to a new trial, but not all of them. K.S.A. 60-259(f) refers to a different subject and states, “a motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served and filed no later than ten days after entry of the judgment.” Therefore, Antoinette followed the proper path to have the court reconsider the judgment. Furthermore, the court explained that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to alter or amend filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-259(f) and that the purpose was to allow the trial judge to correct prior errors.

As for Michael’s second argument, the court concluded that there was no violation of the statute precluding modification of a maintenance award without consent, as there was no modification of an original award of maintenance involved. The judgment was ultimately affirmed.

In sum, when a timely motion to reconsider is filed, the trial court can reconsider its prior findings and make appropriate amendments.