KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

  

Home >> Statutes >> Back


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

23-2701. Grounds for divorce or separate maintenance. (a) The district court shall grant a decree of divorce or separate maintenance for any of the following grounds: (1) Incompatibility; (2) failure to perform a material marital duty or obligation; or (3) incompatibility by reason of mental illness or mental incapacity of one or both spouses.

(b) The ground of incompatibility by reason of mental illness or mental incapacity of one or both spouses shall require a finding of either: (1) Confinement of the spouse in an institution by reason of mental illness for a period of two years, which confinement need not be continuous; or (2) an adjudication of mental illness or mental incapacity of the spouse by a court of competent jurisdiction while the spouse is confined in an institution by reason of mental illness. In either case, there must be a finding by at least two of three physicians, appointed by the court before which the action is pending, that the mentally ill or mentally incapacitated spouse has a poor prognosis for recovery from the mental illness or mental incapacity, based upon general knowledge available at the time. A decree granted on the ground of incompatibility by reason of mental illness or mental incapacity of one or both spouses shall not relieve a party from contributing to the support and maintenance of the mentally ill or mentally incapacitated spouse. If both spouses are confined to institutions because of mental illness or mental incapacity, the guardian of either spouse may file a petition for divorce and the court may grant the divorce on the ground of incompatibility by reason of mental illness or mental incapacity.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1601; L. 1965, ch. 354, § 14; L. 1967, ch. 327, § 1; L. 1969, ch. 286, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 152, § 1; January 1, 1983.

Source or prior law:

G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 639; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 663; R.S. 1923, 60-1501; L. 1931, ch. 228, § 1; L. 1939, ch. 232, § 1; L. 1947, ch. 318, § 1; L. 1951, ch. 347, § 1, 60-1601.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

“Divorce and Alimony Under the New Code,” Dan Hopson, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 27, 28 (1963).

Survey of family law, John Brand, Jr., and Dan Hopson, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 257, 264 (1963).

G.S. 1949, 60-1501 mentioned in “Divorce and Alimony Under the New Code,” Dan Hopson, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 27, 29 (1963).

This section and prior law cited in note on postnuptial insanity as grounds for divorce, John H. Johntz, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 454, 455, 456 (1964).

Federal tax aspects of divorce, Bruce E. Moore, 35 J.B.A.K. 175 (1966).

Prior law and alterations discussed in family law survey, Harvey S. Berenson, 17 K.L.R. 349, 355, 356, 358 (1969).

“Incompatibility: A ‘New’ Approach to the Dissolution of Marriage,” R. E. Schulman, 20 K.L.R. 227, 228 (1971).

“Expungement of Criminal Convictions in Kansas: A Necessary Rehabilitative Tool,” Richard M. Klinge, 13 W.L.J. 93, 94 (1974).

Subsection (1) mentioned in article on the interpretation of “living together as husband and wife,” 14 W.L.J. 164, 167 (1975).

Comment concerning the incompatibility divorce, 14 W.L.J. 349, 352 (1975).

Survey of family law, Merlin Wheeler, 15 W.L.J. 366, 369 (1976).

“Survey of Kansas Law: Family Law,” Camilla Klein Haviland, 27 K.L.R. 241, 243 (1979).

“Domestic Relations: Modification of Future Alimony Payments Due to Changed Circumstances,” Carol Gilliam Green, 20 W.L.J. 66, 69 (1980).

“Joint Custody: A Revolution in Child Custody Law?” Marcy A. Gouge, 20 W.L.J. 326 (1981).

“Some Thoughts and Approaches to the New Divorce Code,” Thad E. Nugent, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 21 (1983).

“Admissibility of Evidence of Marital Infidelity After Sommers,” Michael Laster, Vol. XIV, No. 5, J.K.T.L.A., 23 (1991).

“Family Law: Divorce—Consideration of Fault in Property Division and Maintenance Decisions In re Marriage of Sommers, 246 Kan. 652, 792 P.2d 1005 (1990),” Marti Crow, 30 W.L.J. 525, 528, 529, 530, 534 (1991).

“May fault be considered in deciding financial issues in divorce cases?” James P. O’Hara, 67 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 28 (1998).

“May fault be considered in deciding financial issues in divorce cases?” Steve Leben, 67 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 29 (1998).

“Some issues concerning the property of married persons in Kansas,” John C. Peck, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 18 (1999).

“Summary of Revisions Made to Kansas Domestic Relations Laws by House Substitute for Senate Bill 150,” Ronald W. Nelson, 69 J.K.B.A. No. 6, 19 (2000).

Attorney General’s Opinions:

Creation of lien; deprivation of property and due process requirements considered. 97-39.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, K.S.A. 60-1501 and the 1961 Supplement thereto.

1. Court may not grant divorce to party specifically praying for separate maintenance. Lindeman v. Lindeman, 195 K. 357, 404 P.2d 958.

2. Grounds for separate maintenance considered. Lindeman v. Lindeman, 195 K. 357, 359, 404 P.2d 958.

3. Court cannot grant divorce to wife over her objection when she petitioned for separate maintenance. LeSueur v. LeSueur, 197 K. 495, 498, 500, 419 P.2d 817.

4. Wife, as well as husband entitled to divorce; corroborating testimony; custody of children. Greene v. Greene, 201 K. 701, 703, 443 P.2d 263.

5. Mentioned; corroboration of evidence to support judgment granting divorce (dissenting opinion). Haynes v. Haynes, 202 K. 83, 88, 446 P.2d 749.

6. Religious zeal held to constitute extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 K. 240, 242, 461 P.2d 750.

7. Alimony and child support obligations do not survive death of husband absent clear intent in separation agreement. In re Estate of Sweeney, 210 K. 216, 225, 499 P.2d 56.

8. Jurisdiction discussed; order denying second motion to set aside separate maintenance decree affirmed; res judicata. Taber v. Taber, 213 K. 453, 454, 456, 516 P.2d 987.

9. Divorce granted on ground of incompatibility supported by evidence; provision constitutional. North v. North, 217 K. 213, 535 P.2d 914.

10. Section applied; fee-simple title not vested in parties in a proceeding for separate maintenance. Linson v. Johnson, Executrix, 1 K.A.2d 155, 159, 563 P.2d 485.

11. Cited in finding continuing exclusive jurisdiction in divorce proceedings in district court which first obtains jurisdiction. Nixon v. Nixon, 226 K. 218, 220, 596 P.2d 1238.

12. Lack of proceedings initiated hereunder does not preclude action to enforce defaulting parent’s common law duty of support of children. Keller v. Guernsey, 227 K. 480, 485, 488, 608 P.2d 896.

13. Term “fault” defined; evidence of fault inadmissible where dissolution sought on grounds of incompatibility. In re Marriage of Sommers, 246 K. 652, 655, 792 P.2d 1005 (1990).

14. Whether supreme court rule 118 applies to divorce and maintenance actions examined. In re Marriage of Welliver, 254 K. 801, 810, 869 P.2d 653 (1994).

15. Trial court denial of petition for divorce for failure to perform a material marital duty reversed. In re Marriage of Cohee, 26 K.A.2d 756, 757, 994 P.2d 663 (1999).

16. Lacking personal jurisdiction over respondent, court can determine only status of parties and division of marital property within Kansas. In re Marriage of Salas, 28 K.A.2d 553, 19 P.3d 184 (2001).


 | Next


LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL
11/16/2022 Meeting Notice Agenda
9/23/2022 Meeting Notice Agenda
6/16/2022 Meeting Notice Agenda
2/23/2022 Meeting Notice Agenda
1/7/2022 Meeting Notice Agenda

LCC Policies

COMMISSION ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION
6/29/2022 Meeting Notice Agenda

REVISOR OF STATUTES
2021 Interim Assignments
2022 Valid Section Numbers
Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
Gannon v. State
Information for Special Session 2021
General Information, 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