Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hamel v. Hamel

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 5, 2013No. 102,744Published

1DissentBiles, J.

I would affirm the district court’s decision in its entirety. The majority's threshold premise is that the contract for deed did not constitute a “purchase” of the farmland, as that term is used in the Trust instrument, because the installment payments extended more than 3 years after Arthur Hamel’s death. The majority bases its conclusion on this language from the Trust:

“Upon my death, my Trustees shall have the farmland appraised. Based upon that appraisal, DENNIS HAMEL has the option to purchase any or all of tire farmland for three years immediately following my death at the appraised…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Beltz v. DingsCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2000
  2. Graham v. ClaypoolCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1999
  3. Gault v. HurdSupreme Court of Kansas · 1918
  4. In Re the Estate of HillsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1977
  5. Torluemke v. AbernatheySupreme Court of Kansas · 1953

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API