In its ruling on 23 October 2026, the appeals court found that the trial judge had misused her discretion by refusing to let Scott challenge the division of property. A Kansas appeals court has ordered a lower court to reopen a divorce property case after a judge awarded a marital home to a wife while her husband remained in a jail building next door, unable to attend the hearing. The Kansas Court of Appeals overturned a decision by the Wyandotte County District Court, which had rejected Scott L. Hale’s request to cancel the original property ruling. Scott was being held at the Wyandotte County jail, in a building connected to the courthouse, when the divorce hearing took place without him.
The court noted that Scott had already filed a formal objection to his wife’s proposed split of their assets before the hearing.
Before the final hearing, Scott was arrested on 9 October 2024 over charges linked to allegations made by Rachel. When the final divorce hearing took place on 1 November 2024, Scott was still locked in his cell.
Trial judge Constance M, according to court transcripts cited in the appeals decision. Alvey pointed to Scott’s “failure to participate” and granted the divorce. At the end of the hearing, the judge told Rachel: “Congratulations, and I’m sorry.
He was then held at the Wyandotte County jail. She awarded Rachel sole ownership of the marital home and personal property based entirely on the submissions made by her lawyer. Scott’s friend, Stephanie Belk, who held his durable power of attorney, attended the November hearing with copies of his paperwork. She tried to speak on his behalf but was not allowed to present his case.
Jail officers did not take him across the connected complex to the courtroom, and the court had not issued an order requiring officers to bring him before the judge.
Hale filed for divorce in August 2024 with help from Kansas Legal Services. Scott received the divorce papers in person in September 2024, when he was not in custody. 60-260(b), asking the court to overturn the judgment. At a hearing on the motion in June 2025, Scott’s lawyer expressed frustration that his client was once again absent, even though he was still being held in the nearby jail building. Scott was eventually brought to court for an evidentiary hearing in July 2025. He testified that he had asked jail staff twice on the morning of 1 November 2024 to take him to his divorce hearing.
Because he was in jail and that preventing him from attending had denied him a fair chance to challenge the division of property, he argued that he had missed the hearing. Because he’s in custody for crimes that he had allegedly committed, she also remarked that Scott “couldn’t appear pro se.
She said Scott should have hired a lawyer if he wanted to attend the hearing. When Scott’s lawyer asked the court to order that Scott be brought in person for a later hearing, the judge initially replied “No,” before adding: “I’m being facetious, sir. He said he had received notice of the hearing while in custody and assumed officers would transport him, just as they did for his criminal court appearances.
The legal dispute began when Rachel N. He quickly filed a response without a lawyer, stating: “I do not agree to my spouse’s divide of property debts & assets. After hiring a lawyer, Scott filed a motion under state law, K.S.A. Judge Alvey dismissed the concern. The judge also questioned whether someone held in jail had a legal right to attend a civil court hearing. Despite his testimony, the district court rejected Scott’s motion. The judge found that he had not shown a valid reason for missing the hearing or proved that he had taken the necessary steps to ensure he would attend. The Kansas Court of Appeals overturned the district court’s decision. It ruled that the trial court had failed to give proper weight to Scott’s written objection and his attempts to attend the hearing. The appeals court noted that Scott had not simply ignored the divorce proceedings. He had filed a written response disputing the proposed division of property weeks before his arrest. The panel concluded that refusing to cancel the original property ruling under these circumstances was an abuse of judicial discretion. The decision sends the case back to the Wyandotte County District Court for further proceedings. The move gives Scott another opportunity to challenge how the couple’s real estate, marital assets and debts should be divided. The lower court must now reconsider the property dispute rather than rely on the original ruling made while Scott was unable to attend.