TOPEKA—Judge Robert J. Frederick of the 25th judicial district has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in one case on the court’s 9 a.m. docket Thursday, September 17.
After hearing oral arguments, Frederick will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.
“I am delighted that Judge Frederick is taking time from his duties in the 25th judicial district to sit with the Supreme Court,” said Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss. “It’s a great help to our court and we look forward to his contributions deliberating this case.”
Since 2001, Frederick has served as a district judge in the 25th judicial district, where he currently presides over cases in Finney, Wichita and Scott counties. The 25th judicial district is made up of Finney, Greeley, Hamilton, Kearny, Scott and Wichita counties.
“I was honored to receive the invitation to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court,” Frederick said. “It’s a rare opportunity for trial court judges to sit with the state’s highest court, and I am eager to participate at such a high level.”
Frederick graduated from the University of Kansas and Washburn University School of Law. He has been a member of the Kansas Judicial Council's Family Law Advisory Committee since 2006 and a member of the Kansas Supreme Court Judicial Needs Assessment Committee since 2010.
Before becoming a judge, Frederick served as Kearny County Attorney, Deerfield City Attorney, and as an attorney for U.S.D. 215 in Lakin. He also had a general trial practice in Lakin from 1976 to 2001.
All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas Judicial Branch website at www.kscourts.org.
The case Frederick will hear is scheduled at 9 a.m. Thursday, September 17:
Appeal No. 108, 817: George M. Garcia v. Charles D. Ball
Wyandotte County: (Civil Appeal) Garcia obtained a default judgment against his former attorney, Charles Ball, when Ball failed to file an answer to Garcia's lawsuit for more than four months. Ball then asked the district court to set aside the default judgment, claiming that his failure to answer the suit had been caused by excusable neglect. The district court granted that motion. Garcia appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion because Ball did not provide any factual basis to support his excusable-neglect claim. A Court of Appeals panel reversed the district court's judgment setting aside the default judgment. The court specifically concluded that a district court could not grant relief from judgment based on excusable neglect when the party seeking relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim.
Ball filed a petition for review, seeking review of the Court of Appeals' reversal of the district court's judgment. Garcia filed a cross-petition for review, seeking review of the district court's decision to dismiss his legal malpractice suit against Ball based on the "exoneration rule."
The Supreme Court granted both the petition for review and the cross-petition for review.
The issue on review on Ball’s petition is whether a failure of "excusable neglect," under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(1) would preclude the district court's exercise of discretion in setting aside the default judgment for . . . . "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment . . ." or inadvertence, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-260(b)(6)?
The issues on review from Garcia’s cross-petition are whether the "exoneration rule" requires the plaintiff to be found innocent of the criminal charges or merely requires him to obtain post-conviction relief prior to being able to sue his attorney for malpractice resulting in wrongful imprisonment, and whether the statute of limitations began on the date of the malpractice, or on the date he obtained post-conviction relief.