Washington Mutual Bank v. Brooks

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas
• Decided: January 27, 2017
• Docket: 115577
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 115,577

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, Appellee,

v.

JAMES L. BROOKS, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Johnson District Court; PAUL C. GURNEY, judge. Opinion filed January 27, 2017. Affirmed.

James L. Brooks, appellant pro se.

Courtney Noll, of SouthLaw, P.C., of Overland Park, for appellee.

Before ATCHESON, P.J., STANDRIDGE and SCHROEDER, JJ.

Per Curiam: This is James L. Brooks' third appeal surrounding the district court's decision to foreclose the note and mortgage executed when his property was pledged as collateral.

Brooks first appealed the decision granting the foreclosure of the note and mortgage, and this court affirmed. Washington Mutual Bank v. Brooks, No. 101,389, 2009 WL 2766761 (Kan. App. 2009) (unpublished opinion) (Brooks I).

1 Upon receipt of this court's mandate in Brooks I, the district court ordered the sheriff to sell the property. The sale occurred, and Brooks appealed the order confirming the sheriff's sale. A panel of this court affirmed the district court in Washington Mutual Bank v. Brooks, No. 110,423, 2014 WL 4082084 (Kan. App. 2014) (unpublished opinion) (Brooks II). Upon receipt of the mandate in Brooks II, the purchaser at the sheriff sale sought possession of the property through a writ of assistance. Brooks now appeals the district court's grant of the writ of assistance.

In this appeal, Brooks has failed to support his arguments with any relevant authority. Failure to support a point with pertinent authority or show why it is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority is akin to failing to brief the issue. University of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. Board of Comm'rs of Unified Gov't, 301 Kan. 993, 1001, 348 P.3d 602 (2015). We find no merit in the issues raised by Brooks, and we affirm the district court's issuance of the writ of assistance.

We also find this appeal should be affirmed pursuant Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(1)(2), (5), and (6) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 68).

Affirmed.