KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

  

Home >> Statutes >> Back


Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

60-215. Amended and supplemental pleadings. (a) Amendments before trial. (1) Amending as a matter of course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:

(A) 21 days after serving it; or

(B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under subsections (b), (e) or (f) of K.S.A. 60-212, and amendments thereto, whichever is earlier.

(2) Other amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent, or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.

(3) Time to respond. Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 21 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.

(b) Amendments during and after trial. (1) Based on an objection at trial. If, at trial, a party objects that evidence is not within the issues raised in the pleadings, the court may permit the pleadings to be amended. The court should freely permit an amendment when doing so will aid in presenting the merits and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the evidence would prejudice that party's action or defense on the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet the evidence.

(2) For issues tried by consent. When an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by the parties' express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if raised in the pleadings. A party may move at any time, even after judgment, to amend the pleadings to conform them to the evidence and to raise an unpleaded issue. But failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of that issue.

(c) Relation back of amendments. An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when:

(1) The law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back;

(2) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set out, or attempted to be set out, in the original pleading; or

(3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted, if paragraph (2) is satisfied and if, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the party, including the period for service of process under K.S.A. 60-203, and amendments thereto, the party to be brought in by amendment:

(A) Received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and

(B) knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.

(d) Supplemental pleadings. On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. The court may permit supplementation even though the original pleading is defective in stating a claim or defense. The court may order that the opposing party plead to the supplemental pleading within a specified time.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-215; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 8; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 82; July 1.

Source or prior law:

(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 136, 142; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 137, 143; R.S. 1923, 60-756, 60-762.

(b). L. 1865, ch. 54, § 1; G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 133 through 135, 139; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 134 through 136, 140; R.S. 1923, 60-753 through 60-755, 60-759.

(d). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 144; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 145; R.S. 1923, 60-764.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Substitution of parties, see 60-225.

Defenses and objections, see 60-212.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

1963-65 survey of civil practice, Earl B. Shurtz, 14 K.L.R. 171, 175, 176 (1965).

Referred to in discussing summary judgment, Marion Beatty, 36 J.B.A.K. 17, 20 (1967).

Subsection (b); survey of civil procedure, Spencer A. Gard, 17 K.L.R. 739, 745 (1969).

"Cause of Action Under K.S.A. 60-308 and K.S.A. 60-603(3)," Robert J. Fowks, 38 J.B.A.K. 291, 294 (1969).

Survey of Kansas tort law (1965-1969), 18 K.L.R. 458, 465 (1970).

Commentary on Kansas law on statutes of limitation, 18 K.L.R. 441, 455, 456 (1970).

Insurer's duty to defend insured in personal injury action under liability policy that excludes from coverage injuries caused by the intentional conduct of insured. 20 K.L.R. 351, 358 (1971).

"Civil Procedure: Notice Requirements, Due Process, and Statutes of Limitations," Vivian W. Wiberg, 16 W.L.J. 170, 174 (1976).

"Summary Repossession, Replevin, and Foreclosure of Security Interests," Thomas V. Murray, 46 J.B.A.K. 93, 103 (1977).

"Potential Liability of Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen for Misrepresentation and Nondisclosure in Kansas," Craig Altenhofen, 52 J.K.B.A. 9, 16 (1983).

"Comparative Fault: Avoiding the Phantom Trap," Dan Wulz, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 8, 9 (1983).

"Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515, 530, 531 (1984).

"Pitfalls on the Road to Salvation: The Kansas Saving Statute," Steven C. Day, 59 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 19 (1990).

"Challenging and Defending Agency Actions in Kansas," Steve Leben, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 22, 35, 36 (1995).

"Notice of Claims—Easy to Follow but Timing is Important," Maurice Ryan and Kathleen Lynch, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 36, 41 (1995).

"Criminal Procedure Survey of Cases," 48 K.L.R. 895 (2000).

"Giving Notice of Tort Claims to Municipalities under K.S.A. 12-105b," Teresa L. Sittenauer, 74 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 24 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-753 to 60-756, 60-759, 60-762, 60-764 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Plaintiff held entitled to amend petition to show defendant was foreign corporation. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co. v. West Lake Quarry & Material Co., 194 K. 191, 192, 398 P.2d 575.

2. Trial court given great latitude in permitting amendments to pleadings. Jones v. Garrett, 192 K. 109, 110, 117, 386 P.2d 194.

3. Mentioned; amended petition for allowance filed after nine months; unverified; second amendment permitted. In re Estate of Wilkison, 192 K. 285, 287, 387 P.2d 152.

4. Mentioned; amendment permitted under 60-764. Rexroad v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 192 K. 343, 349, 350, 388 P.2d 832.

5. Permitting amendment to increase amount sought for personal injuries did not change claim. Collins v. City Cab Co., 192 K. 394, 396, 388 P.2d 597.

6. Plaintiff permitted to amend petition to show defendant was foreign corporation. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co. v. West Lake Quarry & Material Co., 194 K. 191, 193, 398 P.2d 575.

7. Trial court permitted wide discretion in allowing amendments. Finn, Administratrix v. Veatch, 195 K. 13, 14, 403 P.2d 189. Reversed, 195 K. 410, 407 P.2d 535.

8. Plaintiff permitted to amend to claim additional damage for money paid as result of judgment obtained by third party. Rexroad v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 192 K. 343, 344, 350, 388 P.2d 832.

9. Ruling that petition could not be amended as matter of course after judgment of dismissal not reviewed on appeal. Lackey v. Medora Township, 194 K. 794, 795, 401 P.2d 911.

10. Trial court permitted wide discretion in allowing amendments. Finn, Administratrix v. Veatch, 195 K. 13, 14, 403 P.2d 189. Reversed, 195 K. 410, 407 P.2d 535.

11. Amendment of pleadings to conform to evidence. Walker v. Fleming Motor Co., 195 K. 328, 330, 404 P.2d 929.

12. Issues not raised by pleadings and not objected to are tried by implied consent in same manner as if raised in pleadings. Forster v. Fink, 195 K. 488, 493, 407 P.2d 523.

13. Mentioned in holding trial court erred in injecting issues not included in pleadings. Simonich, Executrix v. Wilt, 197 K. 417, 424, 417 P.2d 139.

14. Amendment of pleading after responsive pleading, rests in judicial discretion. Hoover Equipment Co. v. Smith, 198 K. 127, 133, 422 P.2d 914.

15. Discretion of trial court properly exercised in denying motions to amend pleadings. Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc., 200 K. 350, 358, 359, 437 P.2d 219.

16. Trial court's refusal to allow amended and supplemental pleadings considered. Schneider v. Washington National Ins. Co., 200 K. 380, 399, 400, 403, 437 P.2d 798.

17. Defendant proceeding to trial without objection may not object to amendment of petition to conform to issues as defined by court. Thomas v. Evans, 200 K. 584, 586, 438 P.2d 69.

18. Subsection (b) mentioned in respect to issues not raised in pleadings, but tried with express or implied consent of parties, are treated as though raised. Thompson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 201 K. 296, 300, 440 P.2d 548.

19. Paragraph (b) applied; judgment awarding damages for negligent delay in delivering of merchandise upheld. Schreppel v. Campbell Sixty-six Express, Inc., 201 K. 448, 451, 441 P.2d 881.

20. Subsection (c) construed; new party cannot be made defendant after statute has run. Schmide v. Naumann, 202 K. 131, 132, 133, 446 P.2d 828.

21. Trial court erred in disallowing amended pleading since it asserted a claim which arose out of the same occurrence attempted to be set forth in the original pleading; the intervention of the bar of the statute of limitations not sufficient reason to refuse amendment. James v. City of Wichita, 202 K. 222, 225, 227, 228, 447 P.2d 817.

22. Relation back under subsection (c) not a question; amended petition not sufficient. Frankhauser v. City of El Dorado, 203 K. 757, 759, 457 P.2d 146.

23. Under subsection (a), leave of court for amendment is not a mechanical, absolute right. Frankhauser v. City of El Dorado, 203 K. 757, 760, 457 P.2d 146.

24. Subsection (a) cited in holding that amendments to pleadings are within the discretion of the court, and no error will lie unless such discretion is abused. Sweaney v. United Loan and Finance Co., 205 K. 66, 70, 468 P.2d 124.

25. Cited in case concerning joinder of parties. McGregor v. Turner, 205 K. 386, 388, 469 P.2d 324.

26. Subsection (b) cited; motion denied to amend pleading, no abuse of discretion. Stehlik, Executor v. Weaver, 206 K. 629, 635, 482 P.2d 21.

27. A trial court is given board discretionary powers hereunder as to the amendment of pleadings, and its action with respect thereto will not constitute reversible error unless it affirmatively appears that the amendment allowed or denied is so material it affects the substantial rights of the adverse party. Ballhorst v. Hahner-Foreman-Cale, Inc., 207 K. 89, 92, 484 P.2d 38.

28. Amendment of petition during trial to show proper party upheld. Jay-Ox, Inc. v. Square Deal Junk Co., Inc., 208 K. 856, 858, 494 P.2d 1103.

29. Construed; trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff to amend original petition by changing name of defendant. Marr v. Geiger Ready-Mix Co., 209 K. 40, 41, 43 to 51, inclusive, 495 P.2d 1399.

30. In certain circumstances statute allows variance between pleading and proof. Tripp v. The Reliable Life Insurance Co., 210 K. 33, 35, 499 P.2d 1155.

31. Appellate review impossible where motion to amend, appellee's objections and trial court's rulings not disclosed in record. Armstrong v. City of Salina, 211 K. 333, 336, 507 P.2d 323.

32. No abuse of discretion to allow amendment of answer raising affirmative defenses four days before trial and on morning of trial. Commercial Credit Corporation v. Harris, 212 K. 310, 312, 510 P.2d 1322.

33. Amendment permitted under subsection (b) after parties presentation of evidence error; affirmative defense should have been presented at pretrial conference. Schmide v. Martin, 212 K. 373, 379, 510 P.2d 1244.

34. Subsection (a) mentioned; amendment timely accomplished when made before responsive pleadings served. Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Due, 212 K. 658, 660, 512 P.2d 525.

35. Subsection (b) amendment allowed where damages awarded exceeded amount prayed for in petition. Phillips & Easton Supply Co., Inc. v. Eleanor International, Inc., 212 K. 730, 738, 512 P.2d 379.

36. Implied consent to allow issues not raised in pleadings where no objection. Moore v. Bayless, 215 K. 297, 302, 524 P.2d 721.

37. No abuse of discretion in refusal to allow amendment of petition after conclusion of evidence. Garcia v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 216 K. 591, 592, 533 P.2d 1242.

38. Paragraph (b) applied; failure to object to claim of variance between pleading and proof; boundary line dispute. Landrum v. Taylor, 217 K. 113, 121, 535 P.2d 406.

39. Construction referred to in holding error to allow amendment of pretrial order after parties had rested. Herrell v. Maddux, 217 K. 192, 194, 535 P.2d 935.

40. Subsection (c) applied in products liability case; amendment related back; not barred by statute of limitations. Brooks v. Dietz, 218 K. 698, 703, 545 P.2d 1104.

41. Subsection (a) construed; trial court erred in not allowing amendment of petition; motion to dismiss not responsive pleading. Weaver v. Frazee, 219 K. 42, 50, 51, 547 P.2d 1005.

42. Amendment of pleadings in original action dismissed as moot allowable hereunder where ongoing controversy may be adjudicated without prejudice to defendant. Knowles v. State Board of Education, 219 K. 271, 279, 547 P.2d 699.

43. Permission to amend answer to raise affirmative defense (the statute of frauds) upheld. Steele v. Harrison, 220 K. 422, 430, 552 P.2d 957.

44. Denying plaintiff leave to file amended petition under facts held error. Schierenberg v. Hodges, 221 K. 64, 66, 558 P.2d 133.

45. Amended petition alleging invasion of privacy sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss. Rinsley v. Frydman, 221 K. 297, 298, 559 P.2d 334.

46. Applied; damage action under Federal Employers' Liability Act; no error in giving or refusing to give instructions. Rediker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rld. Co., 1 K.A.2d 581, 585, 571 P.2d 70.

47. Referred to; no abuse of discretion in submitting to jury element of future medical expenses; action under Federal Employers' Liability Act. Gannaway v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Rld. Co., 2 K.A.2d 81, 85, 575 P.2d 566.

48. Section applied; amended petition properly relates back to the original petition. Nix and Schupbach v. Northern Natural Gas Producing Co., 222 K. 739, 742, 567 P.2d 1322.

49. Subsection (b) cited; in action for nonpayment of commissions, failure to amend pleadings as to setoff did not affect result of trial of issues. Holder v. Kansas Steel Built, Inc., 224 K. 406, 413, 582 P.2d 244.

50. Allowance of amendment of petition to increase amount of actual damage after trial commenced did not constitute arbitrary abuse of discretion. Thurman v. Cundiff, 2 K.A.2d 406, 413, 580 P.2d 893.

51. Not error to instruct on willful, wanton and malicious conduct; damage action resulting from sale of diseased animals; award upheld. Kiser v. Gilmore, 2 K.A.2d 683, 688, 689, 690, 695, 587 P.2d 911.

52. Subsection (b) applied; jury instructions supported by evidence; relevant to plea for punitive damages; award upheld. Kiser v. Gilmore, 2 K.A.2d 683, 688, 689, 690, 695, 587 P.2d 911.

53. Amended petition filed without compliance herewith was not jurisdictional defect. Mansfield Painting and Decorating, Inc. v. Budlaw Services, Inc., 3 K.A.2d 77, 78, 589 P.2d 643.

54. Subsection (b) applied by appellate court to correct technically incorrect pleading. Addis v. Bernardin, Inc., 226 K. 241, 246, 597 P.2d 250.

55. Subsection (b) cited; trial court erred; amendment to pleadings impermissible hereunder as the same did not conform to evidence. Temmen v. Kent-Brown Chev. Co., 227 K. 45, 49, 50, 605 P.2d 95.

56. Mentioned in holding that district court had no authority to hear appeal of tax grievance from board of tax appeals under either 60-2101(d) or 74-2426. In re Lakeview Gardens, Inc., 227 K. 161, 167, 605 P.2d 576.

57. No error in allowing amendment of pleadings; no prejudice in defense of plaintiff's claim. Key v. Clegg, 4 K.A.2d 267, 269, 604 P.2d 1212.

58. Discussed in opinion adopting a form of comparative implied indemnity between joint tortfeasors. Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 K. 439, 460, 618 P.2d 788.

59. Statute not applicable where improper service of process had on proper party. Bray v. Bayles, 4 K.A.2d 596, 611, 609 P.2d 1146. Reversed in part on other grounds: 228 K. 481, 618 P.2d 807.

60. Amendment of mandamus petition adding appeal pursuant to 19-2926 relates back to date of original petition. Martin Marietta Aggregates v. Board of Leavenworth County Comm'rs, 5 K.A.2d 774, 780, 625 P.2d 516.

61. No abuse of discretion by trial court in excluding evidence upon issue not raised in pleadings. Wichita Properties v. Lanterman, 6 K.A.2d 656, 661, 633 P.2d 1154 (1981).

62. Pleadings, in effect, enlarged and amended by consent of parties. Speer v. City of Dodge City, 6 K.A.2d 798, 801, 802, 636 P.2d 178 (1981).

63. Plaintiff's amendment to petition related back to original petition. Cooper v. Hutchinson Police Department, 6 K.A.2d 806, 808, 636 P.2d 184 (1981).

64. Applied; claim in amended pleading arose out of matters in original petition; not barred. Augusta Bank & Trust v. Broomfield, 231 K. 52, 58, 643 P.2d 100 (1982).

65. Subsection (b) applied when evidence introduced but not objected to resulted in implied consent to the issue. Sieben v. Sieben, 231 K. 372, 379, 646 P.2d 1036 (1982).

66. No error in allowing amended petition setting forth different claims which arose out of conduct alleged in original petition. Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 8 K.A.2d 303, 304, 657 P.2d 582 (1983).

67. Under facts herein trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to amend petition. McAlister v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 233 K. 252, 253, 264, 662 P.2d 1203 (1983).

68. Amendment sought to change defendant's name; period for commencing action includes applicable statute of limitations and 90 days under 60-203. Anderson v. United Cab Co., 8 K.A.2d 694, 666 P.2d 735 (1983).

69. Amendment of petition considered in action challenging sewer assessment; amendment of nonclass to class action and amendment to include claim arising from conduct forming basis of original claim considered. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 233 K. 995, 997, 1002, 1003, 1005, 667 P.2d 879 (1983).

70. Amended petition allowed in suit against law enforcement officer for use of force in making arrest (21-3215) prior to 75-6101 et seq. Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita, 233 K. 1028, 667 P.2d 380 (1983).

71. Amendment to plead affirmative defenses allowed where previous default judgment entered in small claims court. Banister v. Carnes, 9 K.A.2d 133, 139, 675 P.2d 906 (1984).

72. Amended pleadings under (c) relate back to original proceedings; timeliness under limitations also relates back. Bob Eldridge Constr. Co. v. Pioneer Materials, Inc., 235 K. 599, 606, 684 P.2d 355 (1984).

73. Defendants impliedly consented to introduction of issue not raised by pleading in failing to object to evidence. Reed v. Hess, 239 K. 46, 51, 716 P.2d 555 (1986).

74. Leave to file out of time proper where no prejudice or abuse of discretion shown. First Nat'l Bank v. Milford, 239 K. 151, 159, 718 P.2d 1291 (1986).

75. Cited; refusal of trial court to allow amendment of pleadings examined. Newell v. Krause, 239 K. 550, 561, 722 P.2d 530 (1986).

76. No abuse in denying amendment where two previous motions granted and third made following summary judgment. Kinell v. N.W. Dible Co., 240 K. 439, 444, 731 P.2d 245 (1987).

77. Trial court has broad discretion in permitting amendment of pleadings. Williams v. Amoco Production Co., 241 K. 102, 109, 734 P.2d 1113 (1987).

78. Cited; necessity of petition amendment when statute amended during litigation examined. R.B. Enterprises, Inc. v. State, 242 K. 241, 244, 747 P.2d 152 (1987).

79. Cited; no abuse of discretion in denying motion to amend filed three days before trial. Robertson v. Ludwig, 12 K.A.2d 571, 582, 752 P.2d 690 (1988).

80. Cited; motion to amend answer after summary judgment hearing based on newly discovered evidence known before hearing examined. Moody Investments, Inc. v. Baldwin, 12 K.A.2d 686, 694, 754 P.2d 810 (1988).

81. Court's discretion in denying motion to amend pleadings filed two days before hearing on motion for summary judgment examined. Rowland v. Val-Agri, Inc., 13 K.A.2d 149, 154, 766 P.2d 819 (1989).

82. Court's wide latitude and discretion in permitting or refusing amendments to pretrial order (60-216) noted. Brown v. United Methodist Homes for the Aged, 249 K. 124, 142, 815 P.2d 72 (1991).

83. Possible amendment of petition by court's jury instruction examined. Anderson v. Heartland Oil & Gas, Inc., 249 K. 458, 469, 819 P.2d 1192 (1991).

84. Amendment not allowed when plaintiff knows identity of prospective defendant but fails to join that party until after statute of limitations has run. Martindale v. Tenny, 250 K. 621, 635, 829 P.2d 561 (1992).

85. Cited in holding that procedure set forth in 60-3703 regarding claim for punitive damages is a requirement for allowing motion. Sullwood v. Barcus, 17 K.A.2d 410, 416, 838 P.2d 908 (1992).

86. Amendment to change defendant's name; period for commencing action includes applicable statute of limitations plus period under 60-203(a). Fennesy v. LBI Mgt., Inc., 18 K.A.2d 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 847 P.2d 1350 (1993).

87. Whether plaintiff's claim was time-barred when amended 90 days after EEOC issued right-to-sue letter examined. Herman v. Western Financial Corp., 254 K. 870, 884, 869 P.2d 696 (1994).

88. Whether court erred in holding amended claim did not relate back to filing date of original petition examined. Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap Co., 255 K. 164, 178, 872 P.2d 252 (1994).

89. Whether appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider new issues raised in untimely amended notice of appeal examined. State v. Grant, 19 K.A.2d 686, 688, 691, 875 P.2d 986 (1994).

90. Whether a party responding to an amended pleading may include new defenses unrelated to specific amendment being responded to examined. King v. Pimentel, 20 K.A.2d 579, 584, 890 P.2d 1217 (1995).

91. Trial court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion to add nuisance claim in negligence action for flood damage. Johnson v. Board of Pratt County Comm'rs, 21 K.A.2d 76, 90, 897 P.2d 169 (1995).

92. Court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend petition as untimely. Clevenger v. Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, 21 K.A.2d 521, 524, 901 P.2d 529 (1995).

93. Trial court erred in denying motion to amend petition to allow nuisance claim in flood damage case. Johnson v. Board of Pratt County Comm'rs, 259 K. 305, 327, 913 P.2d 119 (1996).

94. Amendment to petition allowed to correct typographical error to reflect case is limited action. Hole-in-One, Inc., v. Kansas Industrial Land Corp., 22 K.A.2d 197, 204, 913 P.2d 1225 (1996).

95. Under facts, condemnor may amend eminent domain petition to correct incorrect legal description of landowner's easements. Landau Investment Co. v. City of Overland Park, 261 K. 394, 407, 413, 930 P.2d 1065 (1997).

96. Condemnation award void where landowners never received notice or consented to ex parte amendment adding names and tracts to petition. City of Wichita v. Meyer, 262 K. 534, 540, 546, 939 P.2d 926 (1997).

97. Issue of child's name change in divorce action adjudicated under subsection (b) although not raised by pleadings. In re Marriage of Killman, 23 K.A.2d 975, 979, 939 P.2d 970 (1997).

98. Statute of limitations affirmative defense to contract claim waived by parties' settlement agreement. Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 265 K. 317, 332, 961 P.2d 1213 (1998).

99. Civil code provision of amended petition relating back to original petition inapplicable to criminal proceedings; holding in Milton v. State , 25 K.A.2d 641, 967 P.2d 356 (1998) disapproved. State v. Perez, 267 K. 543, 547, 987 P.2d 1055 (1999).

100. Unnecessary filing of claim under 12-105 may not be used as equitable basis for commencement of action; ability to amend petition requires a timely filing of original petition. Rockers v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 268 K. 110, 119, 991 P.2d 889 (1999).

101. No abuse of discretion by trial court in allowing amendment of pretrial order to proceed in quo warranto. State v. Martinez, 27 K.A.2d 9, 996 P.2d 371 (2000).

102. Pretrial order is to be amended to include any matter tried by express or implied consent of parties. Butler v. HCA Health Svcs. of Kansas, Inc., 27 K.A.2d 403, 6 P.3d 871 (2000).

103. Plaintiff failed to prove failure to join defendant was a case of mistaken identity. Pedro v. Armour Swift-Ekrich, 118 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1160 (2000).

104. Filing an answer on behalf of a dead person as if he were still alive is fraud. Yoh v. Hoffman, 29 K.A.2d 312, 27 P.3d 927 (2001).

105. Trial court not required to permit amendment of pretrial order. Hibbert v. Ransdell, 29 K.A.2d 328, 26 P.3d 721 (2001).

106. Amended petition to correctly name defendant (estate) was within period for commencing action; amended petition not barred by statute of limitations. Hinds v. Estate of Huston, 31 K.A.2d 478, 66 P.3d 925 (2003).

107. 60-215 not 60-225 governs substitution of special administrator as party defendant if alleged tortfeasor dies before suit is filed. Back-Wenzel v. Williams, 32 K.A.2d 632, 87 P.3d 318 (2004).

108. No expiration of statute of limitations when amended petition was filed beyond statute of limitations but within 90 days of filing of original petition. Housh v. Hay, 35 K.A.2d 100, 128 P.3d 409 (2006).

109. No need to amend petition to formally change name of defendant "Administrator of estate." Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 K. 389, 408, 153 P.3d 1227 (2007).

110. Section mentioned in discussing new claims in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Ludlow v. State, 37 K.A.2d 676, 684, 157 P.3d 631 (2007).

111. Cited; relation back doctrine in K.S.A. 60-215(c) does not apply in K.S.A. 60-1507 actions. Wilson v. State, 40 K.A.2d 170, 178, 192 P.3d 1121 (2008).

112. Court unable to construe motion under K.S.A. 60-225 as motion to amend under K.S.A. 60-215. Le v. Joslin, 41 K.A.2d 280, 202 P.3d 677 (2009).

113. Amended 1507 motion held to relate back to the original motion under facts of the case. Rice v. State, 43 K.A.2d 428, 225 P.3d 1200 (2010).

114. Statute does not allow amendments to the pleadings after a default judgment. McDaniel v. Southwestern Bell, Inc., 45 K.A.2d 805, 256 P.3d 872 (2011).

115. A 1507 motion was properly amended with leave of court to add claims of the same time and type as those advanced in the orginal motion. Thompson v. State, 293 K. 704, 270 P.3d 1089 (2011).

116. An amended pleading is considered filed when the movant presents it. Scott v. Ewing, 56 K.A.2d 827, 835, 437 P.3d 1021, 1027 (2019).

117. A district court erred by dismissing a petition without considering an amendment to the petition seeking relief in mandamus for nonpayment of previously ordered unemployment benefits. Luckett v. Kansas Emp't Sec. Bd. of Review, 56 K.A.2d 1211, 1223, 445 P.3d 753 (2019).


 | Next

LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL
  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

REVISOR OF STATUTES
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by KSA
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by Bill
  2024 Valid Section Numbers
  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

USEFUL LINKS
Session Laws

OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES
Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department