This story was updated Wednesday morning to include reaction comments from the attorney representing Beckie Brown.
A Johnson County judge’s decision in a case regarding the sale of Joe D. Dennis Park in Westwood has been reversed.
On Friday, the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that a Westwood resident suing her city over the sale of the city’s main park should have a chance to argue her case.
Back in February, resident Beckie Brown filed a motion to intervene in the proceedings after she and others voiced opposition to a Karbank Real Estate Services plan that calls for an office-retail development to be built on top of Joe D. Dennis Park.
Later that month, Johnson County District Court Judge David Hauber dismissed Brown’s motion to intervene in legal proceedings regarding a protest petition against the sale of the park.
The appellate court’s decision last week to reverse and remand Hauber’s dismissal effectively sends the issue back to district court for a retry. Still, the decision only addresses Brown’s motion to intervene rather than the validity of the protest petition itself.
Brown previously told the Post that she filed the motion to intervene because no residents were named in the city’s Jan. 19 lawsuit, leaving residents without representation during the legal proceedings.
How did we get here?
Last year, the city of Westwood and Karbank began discussing the potential for a development at 5000 and 5050 Rainbow Blvd., the former being the site of Joe D. Dennis Park.
In exchange for selling the park on the corner of 50th Street and Rainbow Boulevard, Karbank agreed to give the city money to buy the original Westwood View Elementary building at 2511 W. 50th St. to build a new city park on the school site.
Westwood residents pushed back on early concepts for the office-retail development, in particular voicing concerns about the height and color of the proposal.
After Karbank reworked the project, residents called on the city to vote against the project because they believed it was a wrong fit for what is seen as the city’s last block of green space.
The city council ultimately approved the Karbank project in October 2023.
Then, residents and the city traded legal threats over whether Joe D. Dennis Park is subject to K.S.A 12-1301, a statute that requires a published notice of intent to sell park land.
Residents said the city’s failure to publish a notice of intent to sell violated state law. On the other hand, the city said the park — though named and used as a park — is not technically designated as park land.
The city published a notice of intent to sell the park property, then residents submitted a protest petition in December against selling it. The city council invalidated that protest petition in January, citing residents’ failure to comply with requirements for petitions as outlined in state law.
Later that same month, Westwood filed a lawsuit in Johnson County District Court. That lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment on whether the state law that residents said the city violated applied to Joe D. Dennis Park. That lawsuit named the state of Kansas as a defendant rather than any resident or group of residents.
As a way to voice her and other residents’ concerns with the sale of the park, Brown filed a motion to intervene into the lawsuit.
In February, Johnson County District Court Judge Hauber of Division 7 ruled the protest petition invalid. Hauber also dismissed Brown’s motion to intervene. Later that same month, Brown filed a motion to appeal with the intent of overturning Hauber’s dismissal of the motion to intervene.
Meanwhile, the city of Westwood kicked off a park planning process for the 3.8-acre space that would come under city ownership as a result of the Karbank development moving forward.
Last week, the city council got a first-look at early concepts for what could become of the 3.8-acre park built where the original Westwood View currently sits. City officials were careful to note the project is on pause until the legal matter is resolved.
What the appeals court decision means
The appeals court decision requires the Johnson County District Court to fully consider whether Brown has any “standing” to be part of the lawsuit.
“Standing” is whether someone is able to bring a lawsuit to court, according to Cornell Law’s Legal Information Institute. Individuals have standing if they can show “a sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action being challenged,” according to the Legal Information Institute.
The Nov. 15 decision brings up several unanswered questions that the appeals court believes the district court should have hashed out the first time around — including the question of Brown’s standing.
Westwood rejected the “protest petitions on a potentially illegal basis” by citing technical flaws, according to the court of appeals decision. This means people who signed the petitions, like Brown, “have suffered a legal injury distinct” from the rest of Westwood residents.
Brown alleges the new development would directly impact her ability to access her residential driveway, according to the court of appeals decision.
The court of appeals in its decision stated that the district court failed to make findings on Brown’s allegations, leaving the court of appeals without anything to review.
The court of appeals “is not a fact-finder,” and is unable to say whether Brown has “standing” in this lawsuit, according to the decision.
Additionally, the court of appeals determined the district court should have given Brown’s arguments a fair shake before agreeing with Westwood on the protest petitions.
The court of appeals also pointed out that Brown’s attorney did argue during the district court hearings but was ultimately limited to addressing Westwood’s arguments. But Brown wanted “to raise additional claims against Westwood,” which “have gone unresolved,” according to the decision.
As a result of the appeals court decision, the Johnson County District Court must “provide a full and fair hearing” regarding Brown’s motion to intervene as well as her “standing,” according to the decision.
Below is the full decision issued by the Kansas Court of Appeals on Nov. 15.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab Residents still want a citywide vote
Ryan Kriegshauser, an attorney with Kriegshauser Ney Law Group representing Brown, told the Post in an emailed statement Tuesday evening that he and his client appreciate the appeals court decision.
Kriegshauser said “this controversy” could have been avoided if the city had opted to hold an election, but the city chose litigation instead. Kriegshauser said he and his client “look forward to fully litigating this case.”
“We will continue to hold Westwood accountable for its attempts to silence and threaten its citizens that simply demanded that the City follow the law,” Kriegshauser said.
As for residents opposed to the sale of Joe D. Dennis Park, they say “we could not have hoped for a better outcome,” according to an online statement from the Friends of Westwood Parkland.
The online statement goes on to say that the Friends anticipate the city of Westwood will continue its “current pursuit.” The Friends acknowledge that there are residents who support the new development, as well.
“We maintain the belief they should be allowed to voice their support — and others their disapproval — in a city-wide vote,” the statement reads.
Reversal “leaves the Westwood community in limbo”
Mayor David Waters told the Post on Monday that the city is disappointed in the court’s ruling, but noted that this stops short of ruling the protest petitions valid.
The appeals court decision requires Johnson County District Court “to consider additional evidence before making a ‘no standing’ determination and ruling on the petitions,” he said.
Waters said that, given the need for the property sales to go through, the decision still “leaves the Westwood community in limbo as to how or whether we can proceed with our new feature park.”
“However, we will continue to work hard to make this vision a reality for Westwood, and we are confident that the needs and desires of the greater Westwood community will soon come to fruition,” Waters added.
Next steps:
- The Westwood City Council called a special meeting on Nov. 20 for an executive session in order to consult with the city attorney related to the 5000 Rainbow and surrounding properties.
- The public is unable to listen into executive session discussions; however, no action can be taken during executive sessions.
- The city council meeting starts at 5 p.m., and the executive session is the only item on the agenda. No action is anticipated following the executive session.
Keep reading: Westwood resident appeals JoCo judge decision on park sale, city motions to dismiss
