CourtListener opinion 4354988

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

No. 117,913

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

 In the Matter of the Marriage of
 ROBERT M. GERLEMAN,
 Appellant,

 and

 JEANNETTE M. GERLEMAN,
 Appellee.

 SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.
 A judgment is void if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the parties, or
if its actions resulted in a denial of due process.

2.
 Since a judgment is either valid or void as a matter of law, appellate courts have
unlimited review.

3.
 The law of the case doctrine exists to avoid indefinite relitigation of the same
issue, to obtain consistent results in the same litigation, to afford one opportunity for
argument and decision of the matter at issue, and to assure the obedience of lower courts
to the decisions of appellate courts.

4.
 The law of the case doctrine applies both to issues a party raised and issues the
party could have, but did not, raise, in a prior proceeding.

 1
 5.
 All issues, including voidness, that could have been raised in a prior appeal will
not be considered in a later appeal.

6.
 A district court cannot modify a matter if the matter was settled by an agreement
incorporated in the decree unless the agreement allows modification or the parties
consent to modification.

7.
 An agreement to pay maintenance that was not incorporated into the decree of
divorce is subject to modification.

 Appeal from Douglas District Court; JAMES R. MCCABRIA, judge. Opinion filed December 28,
2018. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

 Robert M. Gerleman, appellant pro se.

 Curtis G. Barnhill and Adina F. Morse, of Barnhill & Morse, P.A., of Lawrence, for appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, P.J., STANDRIDGE, J., and WALKER, S.J.

 SCHROEDER, J.: This contentious divorce action returns to our court following our
remand in In re Marriage of Gerleman, No. 114,855, 2017 WL 66339 (Kan. App. 2017)
(unpublished opinion) (Gerleman II). In Gerleman II, we found Robert and Jeannette
Gerleman's property settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree was
ambiguous on the division of Robert's military retirement pay. We remanded for the
district court to determine how it understood the parties agreed to divide his military
retirement pay. Now, Robert argues the district court erred when it found the parties
intended to divide the marital portion of Robert's military retirement pay equally. Robert

 2
 on remand for the first time also argued the decree was void. Finally, Robert argues the
district court erred when it determined the amount of maintenance he had to pay was not
modifiable.

 We find the law of the case doctrine precludes Robert's arguments regarding
whether the decree is void and find substantial competent evidence supports the district
court's finding the parties intended to divide Robert's military retirement pay equally.
However, we find the amount of maintenance Robert owed to Jeannette was not a matter
settled by an agreement incorporated in the divorce decree and, as a result, maintenance
was modifiable. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

 Gerleman II sets forth in detail the tortuous history of this case. Because we find
the law of the case doctrine precludes Robert's voidness argument, we will only briefly
summarize the facts leading to our opinion in Gerleman II.

 In 2012, after 20 years of marriage, Robert petitioned for divorce from Jeannette.
In July 2013, the district court entered a divorce decree with an attached summary of
division of property, which divided the parties' marital property in table format. In
relevant part, it states:

 Item Husband Wife
 US Military Pension Divided at husband's retirement Divided at husband's retirement
 5/9/13 (handwritten) based on military formula = # based on military formula = #
 years of marital service/total years of marital service/total
 months of military service months of military service
 TBD TBD

 Jeannette appealed the divorce decree and Robert cross-appealed. In re Marriage
of Gerleman, No. 110,461, 2015 WL 1513967 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion)
(Gerleman I). The parties settled the issues, however, and jointly dismissed their appeals.
 3
 Later, Jeannette filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing
Robert's military retirement pay. A different district court judge than the one who
presided over the divorce heard arguments about what language to use in the QDRO.
Based on the summary of division of property, the district court filed a QDRO dividing
military retirement pay stating:

 \Amount of Payments to Former Spouse. The Former spouse is awarded a