## Facts

- Bernice Enlow obtained a reverse mortgage on her Kansas home in 2007, allowing her to draw loan proceeds during her life, with repayment generally deferred until death.
- After Enlow died, her daughter, Paula Goldwyn, inherited the property.
- Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (RMS), the mortgage holder, accelerated the debt after Enlow’s death when Goldwyn did not pay off or refinance the balance.
- RMS obtained an **in rem** foreclosure judgment of about **$190,446**.
- A sheriff’s sale was held, and RMS—reportedly the only bidder—purchased the property for **$163,000**.
- RMS moved to confirm the sale. The district court entered an order confirming the sale **before** Goldwyn’s response time to the motion expired.
- Goldwyn appealed the confirmation order, arguing (1) the court acted too soon and (2) she was entitled to a **one-year** redemption period rather than the **three-month** period the district court set.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by confirming the sheriff’s sale before Goldwyn’s time to respond to the motion to confirm expired.
2. Whether Kansas foreclosure redemption statutes required a one-year redemption period for this reverse-mortgage foreclosure, rather than a three-month period.

## Decision

- Reversed/vacated the order confirming the sheriff’s sale and remanded because the district court ruled on the confirmation motion before the response period expired.
- Held that ruling before the response deadline was a legal error and therefore an abuse of discretion in the confirmation context.
- Addressed the redemption-period dispute and explained that Kansas law can permit a **three-month** redemption period in this setting; Goldwyn was not automatically entitled to a **one-year** period merely because the loan was a mortgage on a residence and the foreclosure followed the borrower’s death.
- Remanded for further proceedings on confirmation consistent with the requirement that Goldwyn be given the procedurally required opportunity to respond and be heard.

## Legal Principles

- Confirmation of a sheriff’s sale is reviewed for **abuse of discretion**, and a decision resting on a **legal error** constitutes an abuse of discretion.
- A district court must follow governing procedural rules for motion practice; confirming a sale before the nonmoving party’s response time expires deprives that party of the required opportunity to be heard and requires reversal of the confirmation order.
- Kansas mortgage-foreclosure redemption periods are statutory; depending on the statute and facts, a court may set a redemption period shorter than one year.
- In a reverse-mortgage foreclosure, the statutory basis for an extended redemption period tied to repayment history may not be satisfied where the transaction structure involves advances to the borrower and deferred repayment rather than periodic borrower payments; a three-month redemption period may therefore be allowed under K.S.A. 60-2414(m), if statutory conditions are met.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the confirmation of the sheriff’s sale because the district court confirmed the sale before Goldwyn’s response time to the confirmation motion expired, which was legal error in the confirmation process. The court also explained that Kansas statutes may allow a three-month redemption period in a reverse-mortgage foreclosure, so Goldwyn was not automatically entitled to a one-year redemption period.


Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Goldwyn, 425 P.3d 617 (2018)