Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 129,989 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of the Marriage of G.K., Appellant, and J.K., Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Geary District Court; SUSAN C. ROBSON, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed November 13, 2026. Affirmed. V. Linnea Alt, of Law Office of V. Linnea Alt, Chtd., of Junction City, for appellant. Bobby J. Hiebert, Jr., of Hiebert Law Office, L.L.C., of Manhattan, for appellee. Before ARNOLD-BURGER, P.J., ATCHESON and CLINE, JJ. CLINE, J.: When G.K. (Wife) and J.K. (Husband) divorced in 2019, they entered into a marriage settlement agreement resolving all issues. This agreement was incorporated into and made a court order with the filing of their divorce decree. In their agreement, Wife was awarded ownership of the couple's home. But she had to refinance it no later than January 1, 2025, to restore Husband's eligibility for VA mortgage benefits. Neither the agreement nor the divorce decree addressed what would happen if Wife failed to comply with this provision. 1 Wife failed to refinance the home by the agreed-upon deadline, so Husband moved to enforce the district court's order. After a hearing, the district court allowed Wife 90 more days to refinance the home. If she did not refinance it by then, the court ordered the home would be sold and the proceeds handled as stated in the marriage settlement agreement. Wife appeals this decision, claiming the district court had no jurisdiction to modify the marriage settlement agreement. She claims ordering the home to be sold if she did not refinance was an improper modification because the marriage settlement agreement did not provide such a remedy. Husband contends the court had jurisdiction to enforce its order and the parties' agreement and fashion remedies consistent with the parties' intent. Wife challenges the district court's subject matter jurisdiction, which is the court's power to hear and decide a particular type of action. In re Marriage of Allen, 31 Kan. App. 2d 31, 32, 59 P.3d 1030 (2002). Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law over which an appellate court's scope of review is unlimited. State v. Stough, 273 Kan. 113, 116, 41 P.3d 281 (2002). On review, we essentially find both parties are correct—the district court could not modify the parties' agreement, but it could enforce it. See In re Marriage of Garren, No. 91,957, 2004 WL 2282137, at *2 (Kan. App. 2004) (unpublished opinion) ("A settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree is a judgment of the court and as such the district court has an obligation to enforce the terms of the agreement.") (citing Dozier v. Dozier, 252 Kan. 1035, 1039, 850 P.2d 789 [1993]). And we find the court did not modify the agreement but instead, it simply enforced both its order and the parties' intent in their settlement agreement. 2 Wife does not dispute that when she failed to refinance the home within the allotted five years, she breached the parties' agreement that Husband's VA mortgage benefits would be restored. Instead, she argues that since the parties did not include a remedy for this breach in their agreement, Husband cannot pursue one. But, as in In re Marriage of Garren, she has cited no caselaw which calls into question a district court's jurisdiction to enforce its own orders. See 2004 WL 2282137, at *2. The divorce decree incorporated the parties' agreement and made it an order of the court. The language of the parties' agreement is clear: In exchange for receiving title to the home, Wife had to refinance it no later than January 1, 2025, to restore Husband's eligibility for VA mortgage benefits. While Wife offered to assume the mortgage, Husband testified that this would not restore his VA mortgage benefits. Thus, it was not an adequate resolution to fulfill the parties' intent or the court's order. The district court looked to the marriage settlement agreement for the parties' intent and then ordered a remedy that placed the nonbreaching party in the position he would have been in had the breach never occurred. And, in doing so, it also gave Wife the benefit of her bargain by providing the proceeds would be distributed pursuant to the settlement agreement. Also, as Husband points out, allowing Wife to keep the VA mortgage benefits would amount to unjust enrichment. See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510, 518, 205 P.3d 698 (2009) ("[U]njust enrichment arises when [1] a benefit has been conferred upon the defendant, [2] the defendant retains the benefit, and [3] under the circumstances, the defendant's retention of the benefit is unjust."). The parties agreed and the court ordered that Husband's VA mortgage benefits would be restored, so allowing Wife to retain such benefits without consequence undermines the parties' intent and violates the court's order. 3 We find the district court had jurisdiction to enforce its order, and it acted within that jurisdiction and consistent with the parties' intent when it ordered the home sold if Wife did not refinance it within the extended deadline. Affirmed. 4