Printable Format60-259. New trial; motion to alter or amend judgment. (a) In general. (1) Grounds for a new trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues for the following reasons:
(A) Abuse of discretion by the court, misconduct by the jury or an opposing party, accident or surprise that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, or because the party was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its evidence and be heard on the merits of the case;
(B) erroneous rulings or instructions by the court;
(C) the verdict, report or decision was given under the influence of passion or prejudice;
(D) the verdict, report or decision is in whole or in part contrary to the evidence;
(E) newly discovered evidence that is material for the moving party which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial; or
(F) the verdict, report or decision was procured by corruption of the party obtaining it, and in this case, the new trial must be granted as a matter of right, and all costs incurred up to the time of granting the new trial must be charged to the party obtaining the verdict, report or decision.
(2) Further action after a nonjury trial. After a nonjury trial, the court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones and direct the entry of a new judgment.
(b) Time to file a motion for a new trial. A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. While a timely-filed motion is pending, the court may on motion and notice to the parties, permit the moving party to amend the motion for a new trial to state different or additional reasons.
(c) Definite statement of reasons. The motion should not follow the general language of subsection (a) in stating reasons for a new trial, but rather must state specifically the alleged error or other reasons relied on.
(d) Time to serve affidavits or declarations. When a motion for a new trial is based on affidavits or on declarations pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, they must be filed with the motion. The opposing party has 14 days after being served to file opposing affidavits or declarations. The court may permit reply affidavits or declarations.
(e) New trial on the court's initiative or for reasons not in the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the court, on it* own, may order a new trial for any reason that would justify granting one on a party's motion. After giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in the motion. In either event, the court must specify the reasons in its order.
(f) Motion to alter or amend a judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.
(g) Production of evidence. In a case in which a reason for the motion is error in the exclusion of evidence, lack of reasonable opportunity to present evidence or newly discovered evidence, the evidence must be presented at the hearing by affidavit or by declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, or, when authorized by the court, by deposition or oral testimony and the opposing party may respond in like manner.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-259; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 133; July 1.
Source or prior law:
(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 306, 310; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 305, 307, 308; R.S. 1923, 60-3001, 60-3004, 60-3005.
(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 308, 309; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 306; R.S. 1923, 60-3003.
(c). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 308, 309; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 306; R.S. 1923, 60-3003.
(d). L. 1909, ch. 182, § 307; R.S. 1923, 60-3004.
(g). L. 1909, ch. 182, § 307; R.S. 1923, 60-3004.
Revisor's Note:
* The word "it" should have been "its" instead.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Extension of time for filing motion, see 60-206(b).
New trial where general verdict inconsistent with special interrogatories, see 60-249.
Joinder of new trial motion with one for judgment as a matter of law, see 60-250(b).
Relief from judgment or order, see 60-260.
Harmless error not grounds for new trial, see 60-261.
Stay of execution pending new trial motion, see 60-262(b).
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Objections to erroneous rulings or instruction, when necessary under provisions of second paragraph of G.S. 1949, 60-3001, identical to ¶ (a) (Second) of K.S.A. 60-259, John F. Eberhardt, 8 J.B.A.K. 335, 336 (1940).
1963-65 survey of civil practice, Earl B. Shurtz, 14 K.L.R. 171, 183 (1965).
Discussed in comment concerning jury misconduct, John O. Martin, 10 W.L.J. 493, 496, 497 (1971).
"Cameras in the Courtroom: The Kansas Opposition," Harold R. Fatzer, 18 W.L.J. 230, 238 (1979).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Civil Procedure," Jerry G. Elliott, 27 K.L.R. 185, 193 (1979).
"Contested Estate Matters After Court Unification," Calvin J. Karlin, 48 J.B.A.K. 97, 103 (1979).
"Impeaching Civil Verdicts: Juror Statements as Prejudicial Misconduct," James M. Concannon, 52 J.K.B.A. 201 (1983).
"Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515, 535 (1984).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Family Law," Nancy G. Maxwell, 32 K.L.R. 543, 572 (1984).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Juvenile offenders code; new trial. 89-137.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-3001, 60-3003 to 60-3005 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Erroneous orders made on motions addressed to pleadings are not trial errors and need not be included in motion for new trial. Gardner v. Pereboom, 194 K. 231, 234, 398 P.2d 231.
2. Ruling excluding evidence not reviewable unless evidence produced on motion. In re Estate of Roberts, 192 K. 91, 100, 386 P.2d 301; Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Hockenbarger, 192 K. 505, 510, 511, 389 P.2d 760.
3. Trial court's order granting new trial on issue of damages only held proper. Rexroad v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 192 K. 343, 355, 388 P.2d 832.
4. Application of section, damage action, breach of lease agreement (dissenting opinion). Cain Shoes, Inc. v. Gunn, 194 K. 381, 385, 399 P.2d 831.
5. Trial court has authority to grant new trial limited to single issue where issues can be separated. Schmidt v. Cooper, 194 K. 403, 406, 399 P.2d 888.
6. Newly discovered evidence held not of such character as would with reasonable probability compel different result. Wilcox v. Colwell, 193 K. 617, 620, 396 P.2d 315.
7. Motion to set aside default judgment treated as motion to alter or amend hereunder. Sharp v. Sharp, 196 K. 38, 42, 409 P.2d 1019.
8. Effect of motion to alter or amend judgment upon time for appeal. Sharp v. Sharp, 196 K. 38, 42, 409 P.2d 1019.
9. Alleged newly discovered evidence considered. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 196 K. 705, 711, 413 P.2d 988.
10. Court may grant new trial for one or more of the grounds herein listed. Landscape Development Co. v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 197 K. 126, 132, 133, 415 P.2d 398.
11. Trial court may grant new trial more than 10 days after judgment. Landscape Development Co. v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 197 K. 126, 129, 132, 415 P.2d 398.
12. "Motion for rehearing" determined to be request for relief to alter or amend judgment. Ten Eyck v. Harp, 197 K. 529, 532, 533, 419 P.2d 922.
13. No error in refusing admission of testimony which is not "newly discovered evidence." State v. Eaton, 199 K. 192, 193, 428 P.2d 847.
14. Subsection (a) cited; no error in trial court's finding that no fraud in judgment established. Donaldson v. Donaldson, 199 K. 469, 471, 430 P.2d 210.
15. Fifth paragraph of subsection (a) cited; incompetent evidence will not support motion for new trial. Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc., 200 K. 350, 361, 437 P.2d 219.
16. Trial court had no jurisdiction to grant new trial because of dissatisfaction with verdict; order granting new trial appealable when order challenged on jurisdictional grounds. Herbel v. Endres, 202 K. 733, 735, 736, 737, 451 P.2d 184.
17. Applied; no clear abuse of discretion in refusing new trial on grounds of surprise or newly discovered evidence. Bott v. Wendler, 203 K. 212, 229, 453 P.2d 100.
18. Inadequate damages apparently awarded as compromise; new trial awarded on all issues. Timmerman v. Schroeder, 203 K. 397, 400, 401, 454 P.2d 522.
19. Subsection (f) considered in relation to workmen's compensation act; time for appeal thereunder not extended by filing of post-judgment motions. Dunn v. Kuhlman Diecasting Co., 203 K. 670, 671, 455 P.2d 536.
20. No error in denying new trial in criminal action; "newly discovered evidence" not properly supported. State v. Collins, 204 K. 55, 60, 61, 460 P.2d 573.
21. Evidence known or which should have been known at time of trial not "newly discovered evidence" for purpose of new trial. Augusta Oil Co., Inc. v. Watson, 204 K. 495, 500, 464 P.2d 227.
22. Discussion by jury of possibility of insurance and of attorney fees justifies new trial limited to damages only. Dunn v. White, 206 K. 278, 282, 283, 479 P.2d 215.
23. Cited; case involving situation when civil code inconsistent with criminal code. State v. Hemminger, 207 K. 172, 175, 176, 483 P.2d 1096.
24. Amount of verdict not grounds for reversal unless amount in light of evidence shocks the conscience of the court. Langley v. Byron Stout Pontiac, Inc., 208 K. 199, 202, 491 P.2d 891.
25. Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence denied; noncompliance with section. Sims v. Schrepel, 208 K. 527, 530, 531, 492 P.2d 1312.
26. To reverse trial court's ruling granting new trial, clear abuse of discretion must be shown. Sulkis v. Zane, 208 K. 800, 802, 494 P.2d 1233.
27. Action for damages; coercing jury; court erred in not declaring mistrial; new trial granted. Higgs v. Biernacki, 210 K. 261, 262, 263, 499 P.2d 1058.
28. Where record revealed nature of refused testimony, affidavits not necessary to support motion. Dewey v. Funk, 211 K. 54, 58, 505 P.2d 722.
29. Subsection (g) cited; whether oral testimony or depositions are permitted at hearing of motion is discretionary with trial court. Kaetner v. Atchison, T.& S.F. Rly. Co., 212 K. 453, 455, 510 P.2d 1220.
30. Motion hereunder to set aside default judgment under 60-260 sustained; abuse of discretion. Reliance Insurance Companies v. Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co., 214 K. 110, 112, 519 P.2d 730.
31. Exercise of trial courts' judgment depending on credibility of witnesses not reversed unless clear abuse of discretion. Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 214 K. 128, 130, 519 P.2d 1101.
32. Applied; sufficiency of motion to amend judgment. Harvey v. Harvey, 215 K. 472, 476, 524 P.2d 1187.
33. Tentative property division in divorce proceeding modified ex parte; new trial on division issue awarded. Gechter v. Gechter, 216 K. 360, 363, 532 P.2d 1089.
34. Subsection (a) discussed; trial court erred in granting new trial in eminent domain proceeding; jury award within valuation evidence. Mettee v. Urban Renewal Agency, 219 K. 165, 167, 168, 169, 547 P.2d 356.
35. Timely motion for new trial suspended time for appeal prescribed by 60-2103. Loose v. Brubacher, 219 K. 727, 729, 549 P.2d 991.
36. Court had no authority to reduce jury verdict; proper course, where remittitur refused, is granting of new trial. Ford v. Guarantee Abstract & Title Co., 220 K. 244, 274, 275, 276, 553 P.2d 254.
37. No abuse of discretion in not considering contents of affidavit proffered; questionable relevance. Connolly v. Frobenius, 2 K.A.2d 18, 25, 574 P.2d 971.
38. Order granting new trial within court's jurisdiction and not appealable as matter of right. Smith v. Morris, 2 K.A.2d 59, 61, 62, 574 P.2d 566.
39. Applied; 60-260 did not authorize district court to reinstate dismissed action on own initiative. Brown v. Fitzpatrick, 224 K. 636, 638, 585 P.2d 987.
40. Subsections (a), (c) and (g) discussed; a diagram is within the definition of statement. Timsah v. General Motors Corp., 225 K. 305, 310, 311, 591 P.2d 154.
41. Cited; 60-405 applied; issue preserved for appeal. State v. Quick, 226 K. 308, 314, 597 P.2d 1108.
42. Cited; time for appeals from judgment and orders in probate cases commences from date order is signed by judge and filed with clerk of court. In re Estate of Burns, 227 K. 573, 574, 608 P.2d 942.
43. Judgment corrected to conform with established true verdict. Traylor v. Wachter, 3 K.A.2d 536, 542, 598 P.2d 1061.
44. Failure of court to provide for record for appeal constitutes abuse of discretion hereunder; new trial under juvenile code. In re Trotter, 3 K.A.2d 566, 567, 598 P.2d 557.
45. Case involving broken water main; extensive discussion of res ipsa loquitur; elements of juror misconduct incidental thereto. Arnold Associates, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 5 K.A.2d 301, 319, 615 P.2d 814.
46. Trial court did not err in granting new trial based on handwritten statements allegedly drafted and signed by codefendant. State v. Ferguson, Washington & Tucker, 228 K. 522, 530, 618 P.2d 1186.
47. Court does not have jurisdiction to consider new evidence under 60-260 (b)(2) once appeal filed. Martin v. Martin, 5 K.A.2d 670, 673, 623 P.2d 527.
48. A motion for new trial or to modify or amend judgment must be filed in ten days, and it is an abuse of discretion to award attorney fees on such a motion not filed in ten days. Miller v. Miller, 6 K.A.2d 193, 195, 627 P.2d 365.
49. Motion to recall jury required to comply with section and be accompanied by evidence of reason for motion. Cornejo v. Probst, 6 K.A.2d 529, 532, 533, 630 P.2d 1202 (1981).
50. Court on own motion may set aside its previous refusal to set aside default judgment and order new trial. Daniels v. Chaffee, 230 K. 32, 39, 40, 46, 630 P.2d 1090 (1981).
51. A motion for a new trial filed subsequent to the rendering of a jury verdict but prior to the actual entry of judgment thereon is timely filed. Hays House, Inc. v. Powell, 7 K.A.2d 53, 56, 637 P.2d 486 (1982).
52. No requirement to file a motion for new trial before an appeal is taken. Merando v. A.T. & S.F. Rly. Co., 232 K. 404, 413, 656 P.2d 154 (1983).
53. Cited holding appeal time under 61-2102 for limited actions tolled by 60-2103(a). Squires v. City of Salina, 9 K.A.2d 199, 200, 201, 675 P.2d 926 (1984).
54. Motion to alter or amend judgment stays appeal time under 60-2103. Caplinger v. Carter, 9 K.A.2d 287, 290, 676 P.2d 1300 (1984).
55. Party seeking new trial must show evidence could not be produced with reasonable diligence. Schraft v. Leis, 236 K. 28, 39, 686 P.2d 865 (1984).
56. New trial properly granted where trial court found jury failed to follow instructions on damages for eminent domain. City of Ottawa v. Heathman, 236 K. 417, 419, 420, 690 P.2d 1375 (1984).
57. Newly discovered evidence, rule reiterated; affidavit by losing counsel rather than witness not in compliance with (g). Douglas v. Lombardino, 236 K. 471, 489, 490, 693 P.2d 1138 (1985).
58. While some grounds inapplicable to relief from arbitrator's award, others are fully applicable. U.S.D. No. 215 v. L. R. Foy Constr. Co., 237 K. 1, 5, 697 P.2d 456 (1985).
59. Affidavits from counsel on jury misconduct generally insufficient to support error for refusal to recall jury. Walters v. Hitchcock, 237 K. 31, 35, 36, 697 P.2d 847 (1985).
60. Premature filing of motion for rehearing in workers' compensation appeal tolls time for filing notice of appeal. Dieter v. Lawrence Paper Co., 237 K. 139, 144, 697 P.2d 1300 (1985).
61. Objections to journal entry constituted post-judgment motion to alter or amend and extended notice of appeal filing time. Andres v. Classen, 238 K. 732, 737, 714 P.2d 963 (1986).
62. Motion to amend to contain findings required in 60-2102(b) must be filed and served within 10 days of filing of original order. Anderson v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 237 K. 336, 338, 699 P.2d 1023 (1985).
63. Subsection (f) cited; 60-205(e) does not include leaving papers with judge's spouse, secretary or bailiff or in car, home or office. Tobin Constr. Co. v. Kemp, 239 K. 430, 432, 437, 721 P.2d 278 (1986).
64. Cited; determination of whether party received fair hearing under most liberal construction of rules examined. G & S Investment Co. v. Close, 240 K. 48, 726 P.2d 1317 (1986).
65. Cited; hearsay testimony of third party regarding statements by one claiming to be perpetrator, juror conduct examined. State v. Ruebke, 240 K. 493, 511, 513, 731 P.2d 842 (1987).
66. Trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion to alter or amend pursuant to (f); purpose is opportunity to correct errors. Denno v. Denno, 12 K.A.2d 499, 501, 749 P.2d 46 (1988).
67. Motion to vacate same as motion to alter or amend and terminates running of appeal time (60-2103). Citizens State Bank of Grainfield v. Kaiser, 12 K.A.2d 530, 534, 750 P.2d 422 (1988).
68. Cited; relationship between compliance with 60-258 (mailing entry of judgment) and extension provided by 60-206(e) examined. Danes v. St. David's Episcopal Church, 242 K. 822, 823, 752 P.2d 653 (1988).
69. Cited by dissent where majority permitted additur to "correct" judgment (60-2101) where evidence of medical expense excluded. Rood v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 243 K. 14, 27, 755 P.2d 502 (1988).
70. Cited; affidavit controverting prior sworn statement for purpose of creating fact issue on summary judgment motion examined. Bacon v. Mercy Hosp. of Ft. Scott, 243 K. 303, 313, 314, 756 P.2d 416 (1988).
71. Personal injury; newly discovered evidence of similar but subsequent injuries to others, reason for nondiscovery examined. Summers v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 243 K. 393, 757 P.2d 1255 (1988).
72. Whether jury verdict was given under influence of passion or prejudice examined. Bridges v. Bentley, 244 K. 434, 445, 769 P.2d 635 (1989).
73. Posttrial motions as matters which should have been presented before summary judgment entered noted. Blevins v. Hiebert, 13 K.A.2d 318, 323, 770 P.2d 486 (1989).
74. Motions timely filed hereunder toll time for filing notice of appeal while motions under 60-260 do not. Beal v. Rent-A-Center of America, Inc., 13 K.A.2d 375, 377, 771 P.2d 553 (1989).
75. Third parties as acquiring no interest in subject matter while foreclosure action pending (60-2201) noted. In re Gugenhan, 55 B.R. 507, 509 (1985).
76. Additional evidence to consider in altering or amending obligations in child support matters examined. In re Marriage of Blagg, 13 K.A.2d 530, 535, 775 P.2d 190 (1989).
77. Timely motion to alter or amend tolls time for filing notice of appeal (60-2103). Uhock v. Sleitweiler, 13 K.A.2d 621, 625, 778 P.2d 359 (1989).
78. Statute applicable in absence of chapter 22 statute where motion to modify sentence constitutes motion to alter or amend. State v. Marks, 14 K.A.2d 594, 597, 796 P.2d 174 (1990).
79. Noted by dissent where 60-203 and 60-206 compared concerning extension of time for service and application of same. Read v. Miller, 247 K. 557, 565, 802 P.2d 528 (1990).
80. Necessity to instruct on traffic control provisions of 8-1531 examined where maintenance worker killed by oncoming vehicle. Sterba v. Jay, 249 K. 270, 274, 816 P.2d 379 (1991).
81. Loss of chance rule vs. negligence rules in medical malpractice case examined; jurisdiction not challenged where new trial granted. Donnini v. Ouano, 15 K.A.2d 517, 526, 810 P.2d 1163 (1991).
82. Requirement that alleged errors or grounds relied upon to support a new trial be stated specifically noted. State v. Zimmerman, 251 K. 54, 67, 833 P.2d 925 (1992).
83. Effect of partial adjudication of claims examined where final judgment not entered pursuant to 60-254(b); school's obligation to student considered. Honeycutt v. City of Wichita, 251 K. 451, 459, 836 P.2d 1128 (1992).
84. When Kansas Supreme Court rule 2.03 validates premature notice of appeal filed after motion to alter/amend but before motion denied examined. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bopp, 251 K. 539, 544, 836 P.2d 1142 (1992).
85. Trial court's journal entry constituted consent decree between parties and was final order even though jurisdiction retained. Steele v. Guardianship & Conservatorship of Crist, 251 K. 712, 717, 840 P.2d 1107 (1992).
86. Discretion in granting new trial when one of the grounds herein exists examined. Peoples Bank of Pratt v. Integral Ins. Co., 251 K. 809, 811, 840 P.2d 503 (1992).
87. Noted in holding that where defendant agrees to additur, plaintiff need not consent nor will new trial be granted. Dixon v. Prothro, 17 K.A.2d 19, 28, 830 P.2d 1221 (1992).
88. Mailing entry of judgment extends time for filing postjudgment motions and appeal by three days. Marinhagen v. Boster, Inc. 17 K.A.2d 532, 536, 840 P.2d 534 (1992).
89. Order of remittitur or new trial on damages examined where verdict not based on one of six grounds listed. Tuley v. City of Kansas City, 17 K.A.2d 661, 667, 843 P.2d 267 (1992).
90. Trial judge's refusal to recall jury and determine whether verdict substantially affected by juror misconduct was error requiring new trial. Saucedo v. Winger, 252 K. 718, 728, 729, 850 P.2d 908 (1993).
91. Statute tolled when motion for rehearing treated as motion to alter or amend judgment. In re Marriage of Hansen, 18 K.A.2d 712, 714, 858 P.2d 1240 (1993).
92. Effect of mailing judgment on deadline for filing postjudgment motions and appeals examined. Hundley v. Pfuetze, 18 K.A.2d 755, 758, 858 P.2d 1244 (1993).
93. Whether grounds for a new trial must generally be based on objections properly made and preserved at trial examined. Hendrix v. Docusort, Inc., 18 K.A.2d 806, 808, 860 P.2d 62 (1993).
94. Whether liability issues in products liability action requires a new trial on all issues examined. Kerns v. G.A.C., Inc., 255 K. 264, 278, 875 P.2d 949 (1994).
95. Assigned judge's denial of subsection (f) motion to alter or amend after judge imposing sanctions recused not an abuse of discretion. Subway Restaurants, Inc. v. Kessler, 266 K. 433, 439, 970 P.2d 526 (1998).
96. Second motion for new trial did not toll time for appeal of underlying judgment. State ex rel. Secretary of SRS v. Mayfield, 25 K.A.2d 452, 456, 966 P.2d 85 (1998).
97. Prosecution appeal of imposition of sanctions dismissal based on untimely filing upheld. In re D.G.K., 26 K.A.2d 884, 885, 995 P.2d 413 (2000).
98. Upon filing of timely motion, court may reconsider its prior findings and conclusions and make appropriate amendments. In re Marriage of Willenberg, 271 K. 906, 26 P.3d 684 (2001).
99. No error in denying motion for new trial. Erixson v. Ojeleye, 35 K.A.2d 72, 128 P.3d 426 (2006).
100. Denial of post-trial motion not abuse of discretion where party could have made argument before verdict. Wenrich v. Employees Mut. Ins. Co., 35 K.A.2d 582, 590, 132 P.3d 970 (2006).
101. Evidential rulings cannot support granting new trial unless refusal to grant new trial inconsistent with substantial justice. City of Mission Hills v. Sexton, 284 K. 414, 416, 423, 160 P.3d 812 (2007).
102. Cited in dissenting opinion that would grant a new trial rather than reinstate jury verdict. Williams v. Lawton, 38 K.A.2d 565, 170 P.3d 414 (2007).
103. Mentioned in oil and gas case; attorney fees under K.S.A. 55-202 not mandatory. Dexter v. Brake, 38 K.A.2d 1005, 1021, 174 P.3d 924 (2008).
104. Cited; father contesting adoption because mother's fraud; adoption judgment not void nor entitled to relief because of fraud. In re Adoption of A.A.T., 287 K. 590, 591, 629, 196 P.3d 1180 (2008).
105. Motion under subsection (f) denied; court enforces property settlement agreement containing hold harmless agreement. In re Marriage of Hudson, 39 K.A.2d 417, 422, 424, 182 P.3d 25 (2008).
106. Cited; time limit for filing appeal under probate code is tolled by filing postjudgment motion pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2103(a). In re Guardianship of Sokol, 40 K.A.2d 57, 64, 189 P.3d 526 (2008).
107. Motion for new trial may be initiated and supported by presentation of affidavits. Williams v. Lawton, 288 K. 768, 207 P.3d 1027 (2009).
108. Trial court lacks authority to extend the 10-day period for filing post trial motions under K.S.A. 60-259(f). Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs v. City of Park City, 41 K.A.2d 646, 204 P.3d 648 (2009).
109. Jury misconduct found; new trial ordered based on district court's abuse of discretion. Duncan v. West Wichita Family Physicians, 43 K.A.2d 111, 221 P.3d 630 (2010).
110. Where a motion is timely under subsection (f), not completely devoid of substance, and offers at least some identifiable reason for reconsidering the judgment, it is properly construed as a motion to reconsider under subsection (f). In re Estate of Lentz, 312 K. 490, 502, 476 P.3d 1151 (2020).