Source or prior law:

G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 23; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 22; R.S. 1923, 60-311.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

G.S. 60-311 discussed in survey of family law, John Brand, Jr., Dan Hopson, Jr., 12 K.L.R. 257, 269 (1963).

Wrongful Death Act, Jeraldine B. Davis, 27 K.L.R. 141, 142 (1978).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Civil Procedure," 29 K.L.R. 449, 460 (1981).

"Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515, 523, 524, 525 (1984).

"Pitfalls on the Road to Salvation: The Kansas Saving Statute," Steven C. Day, 59 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 (1990).

"Kansas' Statutes of Repose: The Unwarranted Dichotomy," Mark A. Furney, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 12 (1995).

"Civil Procedure: The Kansas Savings Statute Revives a Timely Filed Cause of Action, Despite the Passing of the Statute of Limitations [See v. Hartley, 896 P.2d 1049 (Kan. 1995)]," Michelle M. Sehee, 35 W.L.J. 346 (1996).

"Is Your Lawsuit Properly Commenced?" Bryan W. Smith, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXI, No. 1, 19 (1997).

"Survey of Kansas Tort Law: Part I," William E. Westerbeke and Stephen R. McAllister, 49 K.L.R. 1037 (2001).

"Walking the Legal Tightrope: Serving Timely Process When Filing State Claims in Federal Court," Matt Corbin and Casey Tourtillott, 73 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 28 (2004).

"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, 60-311 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Section inapplicable in diversity action in federal court sitting in Texas; does not create a new cause of action. Evers v. Powell, 238 F. Supp. 787, 789.

2. Action failed "otherwise than upon the merits" within meaning of G.S. 1949, 60-311. Barrett v. Porter, 195 Kan. 600, 601, 408 P.2d 574.

3. Section cited; minor children not barred from action even though mother would be barred. Frost v. Hardin, 1 Kan. App. 2d 464, 466, 571 P.2d 11.

4. Applied; action failed otherwise than on merits; voidable service; commencement of new action authorized. Goldsberry v. Lewis, 2 Kan. App. 2d 56, 57, 58, 574 P.2d 566.

5. Tolling provision of K.S.A. 60-517 did not suspend the time for filing new action hereunder. Carter v. Kretschmer, 2 Kan. App. 2d 271, 272, 273, 577 P.2d 1211.

6. Cited; no res judicata effect on plaintiff's motion to dismiss when it is not dismissed with prejudice. Greenlee v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 572 F.2d 273, 275.

7. Action against city not "commenced within due time" where service made upon city attorney and not upon the mayor or clerk as required under K.S.A. 60-304. Dunn v. City of Emporia, 7 Kan. App. 2d 445, 451, 452, 643 P.2d 1137 (1982).

8. Cited in affirming summary judgment for defendant; insufficient service of process. Garrison v. Vu, 8 Kan. App. 2d 189, 191, 192, 653 P.2d 824 (1982). Reversed, Garrison v. Vu, 233 Kan. 236, 238, 662 P.2d 1191 (1983).

9. Provisions hereof cannot be used to toll limitation period statutorily prescribed for taking appeal from agency decision. Lakeview Village, Inc. v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 232 Kan. 711, 712, 713, 723, 726, 659 P.2d 187 (1983).

10. No error in reexamining the question of whether previous malpractice action had been favorably terminated. Nelson v. Miller, 233 Kan. 122, 123 660 P.2d 1361 (1983).

11. Section applicable regardless of forum where action first filed. Prince v. Leesona Corp., Inc., 720 F.2d 1166, 1168 (1983).

12. Dismissal for failure to substitute parties within reasonable time after death operates as adjudication on merits unless otherwise specified. Livingston v. Estate of Bias, 9 Kan. App. 2d 146, 147, 150, 673 P.2d 1197 (1984).

13. Statute preserves to potential members of class action suit, dismissed otherwise than on merits, six months to file individual suits. Waltrip v. Sidwell Corp., 234 Kan. 1059, 1064, 678 P.2d 128 (1984).

14. Inapplicable where original action not "commenced within due time" per K.S.A. 60-203. Newell v. Brollier, 239 Kan. 587, 589, 722 P.2d 528 (1986).

15. To come within statute, same plaintiffs would have to bring second action after failing "otherwise than upon the merits." Rogers v. Williams, Larson, Voss, Strobel and Estes, 245 Kan. 290, 293, 777 P.2d 836 (1989).

16. Further action where statute of limitations has run must begin within time period allowed in K.S.A. 60-518. Crockett v. Medicalodges, Inc., 247 Kan. 433, 442, 799 P.2d 1022 (1990).

17. Where no service effected within 90 days of original dismissal, action not commenced within due time regarding six-month period and running of limitations. Elliott v. White, O'Connor & Werner, P.A., 750 F. Supp. 451, 454 (1990).

18. Applicability of savings statute examined where initial action in Kansas timely but dismissed and then brought in Missouri. Penalosa Co-Op Exchange v. A.S. Polonyi Co., 754 F. Supp. 722, 734 (1991).

19. Issues presented were purely questions of law; plaintiff's apparent illness did not affect court's ability to rule on motions. Chance v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 756 F. Supp. 1440, 1442 (1991).

20. Amended complaint renaming defendants not timely filed; relation back to time of original complaint not allowed. Wandrey v. Service Business Forms, Inc., 762 F. Supp. 299, 302, 304 (1991).

21. Kansas law applied by Missouri bankruptcy court in action involving insurance settlement; state had most significant relationship to contract and parties. In re Masters Mortg. Inv. Fund, Inc., 151 B.R. 513 (1992).

22. Whether refiled complaint relates back to original filing date examined in footnote. Koch v. Shell Oil Co., 815 F. Supp. 1434, 1437, 1438 (1993).

23. Saving statute does not apply to toll statute of limitations in federal question suit. Engberg v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 820 F. Supp. 558, 560, 561 (1993).

24. Whether seller's motion to amend complaint commenced action to invoke savings statute examined. Kimbrell v. ADIA, S.A., 834 F. Supp. 1313, 1317 (1993).

25. Whether parties contracting for limitations period other than statutory period waive use of savings statute examined. In re Master Mortg. Inv. Fund, Inc., 165 B.R. 453, 455 (1993).

26. Whether parties who contractually choose limitations period other than statutory may rely on savings statute examined. In re Master Mortg. Inv. Fund, Inc., 165 B.R. 453, 455 (1993).

27. Whether plaintiff's state action failed for savings statute purposes when journal entry of dismissal filed examined. Matzke v. Merck and Co., Inc., 848 F. Supp. 936, 937 (1994).

28. Action timely filed under K.S.A. 60-513(a) or (c) held subject to section's saving provision. See v. Hartley, 257 Kan. 813, 814, 896 P.2d 1049 (1995).

29. Knowledge of attempted invalid service by defendant's attorney does not constitute substantial compliance or indicate defendant knew of service. Grimmett v. Burke, 21 Kan. App. 2d 638, 641, 905 P.2d 156 (1995).

30. On certified question, section saves wrongful death actions. Goldsmith v. Learjet, Inc., 260 Kan. 176, 193, 198, 917 P.2d 810 (1996).

31. Noted in discussion that claims barred by K.S.A. 60-515(a) statute of repose may not be revived by later enacted limitations statute. Ripley v. Tolbert, 260 Kan. 491, 508, 921 P.2d 1210 (1996).

32. Kansas borrowing statute does not borrow foreign state's savings statute. Goldsmith v. Learjet, Inc., 90 F.3d 1490, 1493 (1996).

33. Fact issue concerning when shareholders discovered fraud precluded summary judgment. Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 1583 (1997).

34. Statement by employer indicating plaintiff could refile claim out of time waived limitations defense. Gardner v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 1257, 1259 (1997).

35. Time barred defamation claim was not saved by savings statute. Taylor v. International Union of Electronic Workers, et al., 25 Kan. App. 2d 671, 674, 968 P.2d 685 (1998).

36. Plaintiff may assert saving provision after statute of limitations has run only once. Clanton v. Estivo, 26 Kan. App. 2d 340, 341, 988 P.2d 254 (1999).

37. Kansas savings clause inapplicable because earlier action of court was on merits of case. Augustine v. Adams, 88 Kan. App. 2d 1166, 1173 (2000).

38. Failure to file claim against municipality under K.S.A. 12-105b is not cured by savings provisions of K.S.A. 60-518; written notice of claim is jurisdictional prerequisite. Gessner v. Phillips County Comm's, 270 Kan. 78, 11 P.3d 1131 (2000).

39. Material issue concerning whether attorney's failure to timely file claim constituted malpractice precluded summary judgment. Taylor v. Casey, 182 Kan. App. 2d 1096, 1102 (2002).

40. Dismissal upheld where plaintiff did not state an adequate factual basis for tolling statute of limitations. U.S. v. Tucker, 313 F.3d 1259, 1235 (2002).

41. Section inapplicable where action was dismissed and refiled after statute of limitations had run by person claiming to be same person who filed original action. Comstock v. Joplin, 31 Kan. App. 2d 410, 65 P.3d 1055 (2003).

42. Fraud claim was not properly commenced for savings statute purposes. Moore v. Luther ex rel. Luther, 291 Kan. App. 2d 1194, 1201 (2003).

43. Plaintiff is precluded from asserting state savings statute in federal torts act claim. In re Franklin Savings Corp., 385 F.3d 1279, 1288 (2004).

44. Section did not apply; compliance with notice of claim statute is a jurisdictional prerequisite to commence action within the limitation period. Christopher v. State, 36 Kan. App. 2d 697, 701, 143 P.3d 685 (2006).

45. Court holds that although previous action was dismissed by court, the equitable claims made were "saved" under K.S.A. 60-518. Cooke v. Gillespie, 285 Kan. 748, 752, 753, 176 P.3d 144 (2008).

46. Timely Arizona case dismissed but not on merits, K.S.A. 60-518 allows refiling in Kansas within six months. Campbell v. Hubbard, 41 Kan. App. 2d 1, 201 P.3d 702 (2009).

47. Once waived, a doctor cannot raise the affirmative defense of statute of limitations in a second lawsuit. Ternes v. Galichia, 43 Kan. App. 2d 857, 234 P.3d 820 (2010).

48. District court's dismissal of action based on Missouri savings statute held erroneous. Chatterton v. Roberts, 44 Kan. App. 2d 22, 235 P.3d 1251 (2010).

49. Savings statute does not apply to state prisoner's previously filed state court civil rights suit against prison officials. Smith v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 455 Fed. App. 841 (10 th Cir. 2011).

50. Plaintiff who files an individual action after a failure of a class action not on the merits can rely on this statute even if the plaintiff does not sue every defendant in the class action. Seaboard Corporation v. Marsh Inc., 295 Kan. 383, 284 P.3d 314 (2012).

51. Defendant's claims were timely, having been timely filed in the federal court and then filed in the state court within six months of dismissal; K.S.A. 60-518 applies even if the first action was not filed in a Kansas state court. Watco Companies, Inc. v. Campbell, 52 Kan. App. 2d 602, 615, 371 P.3d 360 (2016).

52. A party may use the savings statute only once to refile a claim that failed otherwise than upon the merits. Lozano v. Alvarez, 306 Kan. 421, 424, 394 P.3d 862 (2017).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov