Printable Format60-701. Grounds for attachment. Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 60-703, and amendments thereto, the plaintiffs at or after the commencement of any civil action may have, as an incident to the relief sought, one or more attachments against the property of the defendant, or that of any one or more of several defendants, when the defendant whose property is to be attached:
(1) is a nonresident of the state or a foreign corporation, or
(2) has absconded or is concealed so that the summons cannot be served or is about to move out of this state with the intent of changing domicile, or
(3) is about to remove his or her property or effects out of this state, or
(4) is about to convert his or her property or a part thereof into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of creditors, or
(5) has concealed, removed, assigned, conveyed or otherwise disposed of his or her property or effects so as to hinder or delay creditors or is about to do so, or
(6) fraudulently contracted the debt or fraudulently incurred the liability, or
(7) is liable for damages for injuries arising out of the commission of some felony or misdemeanor, or the seduction of a person, or
(8) has failed to pay the price or value of any article or thing delivered which by contract the defendant was bound to pay upon delivery.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-701; L. 1970, ch. 238, § 3; L. 1975, ch. 52, § 20; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1866, ch. 76, § 1; G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 190; L. 1870, ch. 87, § 4; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 190; L. 1911, ch. 231, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-901.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Fraudulent conveyances in Kansas, F. J. Moreau, 11 J.B.A.K. 205 (1943).
"Unlicensed Foreign Corporations," Russell D. Jacobson, 12 K.L.R. 49, 52 (1963).
The grounds for attachment are designed to prevent removal of property out of jurisdiction and to enable plaintiff to acquire jurisdiction over defendant's property, Clarence Koch, 7 W.L.J. 51 (1967).
Comment on creditor's remedies under civil procedure code in case of fraudulent conveyance, Charles L. Frickey, 17 K.L.R. 501, 505 (1969).
Discussion of impact of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code upon Kansas, Barkley Clark, 18 K.L.R. 277, 292 (1970).
"Wage Garnishment: Reform of the Law in Kansas," Richard S. Wetzler, 18 K.L.R. 925, 929, 935 (1970).
"Civil Procedure—Prejudgment Garnishment and Due Process of Law," Larry R. Mears, 9 W.L.J. 460, 463 (1970).
Mentioned as appearing unconstitutionally broad in "The New Kansas Consumer Legislation," Barkley Clark, 42 J.B.A.K. 147, 150, 151 (1973).
"Civil Procedure: Kansas Prejudgment Attachment and the Due Process Clause," Scott J. Gunderson, 17 W.L.J. 163, 170 (1977).
"Summary Repossession, Replevin, and Foreclosure of Security Interest," Thomas V. Murray, 46 J.B.A.K. 93, 101 (1977).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-901 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Attachment proceedings may be commenced after substituted service. Cadwallader v. Lehman, 202 K. 738, 745, 451 P.2d 163.
2. Statute enabling state to recover expenditures in providing counsel for indigent defendants (22-4513) violated equal protection clause of U.S. Constitution. James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 92 S.Ct. 2027, 2028, 32 L.Ed.2d 600.
3. Kansas attachment procedure held unconstitutional; violation of due process; reasons. Hillhouse v. City of Kansas City, 221 K. 369, 370, 377, 378, 559 P.2d 1148.
4. Cited; damages awarded for wrongful appointment of receiver; judgment affirmed. Braun v. Pepper, 224 K. 56, 57, 578 P.2d 695.
5. Affidavit held adequate to support order of garnishment of local bank account maintained by foreign corporation. Nelson v. Thornberg, 504 F.Supp. 199, 201.
6. Attachment proper when defendant guilty of fraud; FSLIC assumed liabilities of insolvent. W-V Enterprises, Inc. v. Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp., 234 K. 354, 371, 372, 673 P.2d 1112 (1983).
7. Cited; surety on bond not liable for wrongful attachment to one not named obligee nor party to action. Fink v. Allen, 11 K.A.2d 27, 29, 711 P.2d 768 (1985).
8. Cited; ten-day requirement in 60-718(c) not applicable to claim of exemptions from garnishment. Bartlett Cooperative Ass'n v. Patton, 239 K. 628, 629, 630, 722 P.2d 551 (1986).
9. Burden of proof on propriety of attachment examined; allegation of conversion and amount of proposed bond deemed insufficient. Mid-States Ag-Chem Co. v. Atchison Grain Co., 750 F.Supp. 465, 468 (1990).
10. Deduction of parole supervision fees from inmate's account did not constitute bill of attainder. Owens v. Sebelius, 357 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1288 (2005).