Landmark Development Group, LLC v. Lonnie LuPardus

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

4 Dean, 56 Kan. App. 2d 770, 772-73, 437 P.3d 46 (2018) (citing King v. Stephens, 113 Kan. 558, 560, 215 P. 311 [1923]). If no transcript or adequate substitute is provided, we will not review any action of the trial court requiring us to examine the evidence. In re Marriage of Dean, 56 Kan. App. 2d at 772-73 (citing First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Lygrisse, 231 Kan. 595, 603, 647 P.2d 1268 [1982]; Osborne v. Fakes, 178 Kan. 373, 376, 286 P.2d 156 [1955]). "Without an objection, this court will presume the district court made all the necessary factual findings to support its judgment, though this court may consider a remand if the lack of specific findings precludes meaningful appellate review." Bicknell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 315 Kan. 451, Syl. ¶ 14, 509 P.3d 1211 (2022). Including documents in an appendix does not make those documents part of the record on appeal; only materials properly designated and filed may be considered. Rodriguez v. U.S.D. No. 500, 302 Kan. 134, 144, 351 P.3d 1243 (2015); Rule 6.02(a)(4)- (5). LuPardus did not designate a transcript for the first day of trial. When an appellant fails to provide a complete record, Kansas law requires the appellate court to presume the district court's factual findings were correct. In re Marriage of Dean, 56 Kan. App. 2d at

Authorities cited in the passage: Meadors v. Feltor · Edwards v. Scholtzs · Wilson v. Gutschenritter · King v. Stephens · First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Lygrisse · Osborne v. Fakes · Bicknell v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue · Rodriguez v. U.S.D. No. 500