10-1119. Void contracts and orders. Any contract entered into between the governing body of any municipality and any person, which violates the provisions of this act, shall be void, and any order, warrant, check or other evidence of indebtedness drawn on the treasurer of any municipality in violation of the provisions of this act shall be void.
History: L. 1933, ch. 319, ยง 19; March 31.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Negotiated agreements would be invalid if they violated the cash basis school financing laws, Larry L. Deemer and Robert J. Fowks, 7 W.L.J. 291, 297 (1968).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Teacher's contract creating indebtedness in excess of funds held void. Patterson v. Montgomery County Comm'rs, 145 Kan. 559, 563, 66 P.2d 400.
2. Purpose of act discussed; applies to statutory claims. Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458, 461, 462, 99 P.2d 779. Affirmed: 152 Kan. 41, 102 P.2d 1043.
3. Township's lease purchase contract for road machinery held invalid hereunder. J. D. Adams Co. v. Dor Township, 153 Kan. 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 631, 632, 113 P.2d 138.
4. City's two-year agreement with firefighters' union not in violation of budget law or cash-basis law. International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Lawrence, 14 Kan. App. 2d 788, 791, 802, 798 P.2d 960 (1990).
5. Whether lease-purchase agreement executed by municipality which violates cash-basis law (K.S.A. 10-1101 et seq.) is void examined. U.S.D. No. 207 v. Northland Nat'l Bank, 20 Kan. App. 2d 321, 326, 887 P.2d 1138 (1994).
6. Bonding provisions of K.S.A. 12-1770 et seq. for auto race track do not violate cash basis law. State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 265 Kan. 779, 803, 962 P.2d 543 (1998).
7. City's lease agreement that was never approved by the affirmative votes was void and unenforceable in violation of the cash-basis law. State ex rel. Hecht v. City of Topeka, 296 Kan. 505, 293 P.3d 713 (2013).
|
|