Sign in to follow this  
ProSe007

Kansas Case Laws/rules of civil procedure/Sample Forms/etc.

Recommended Posts

Welcome,

I started this thread in the hopes of having a place where residents of Kansas can work together to find relevant Case Laws, State Laws, Rules of Civil Procedure, Sample Forms, and any other materials or Advice.

If you have been through this process before I welcome you to share your experience on the things you did right, and also the things you did wrong so we may all learn and strengthen our cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For credit cards or money owed

KSA chapter 60

KSA chapter 61

KSA chapter 50 is consumer protection

Pleading and Practice

Some of the different filings creditors will use.

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=7gk-AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en

Shipman’s standard text on Common Law Pleading. link on this page

http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/CL_Pleading.pdf

http://famguardian.org/Publications/CommonLawPractice/Principles_of_Common_law_Pleading.pdf

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4770&context=mulr

http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/articles/114/114%20Penn%20St.%20L.%20Rev.%201257.pdf

Petition on a Credit Card

PETITION FOR COLLECTION

Petition on Contract

PETITION FOR DEBT COLLECTION

PETITION FOR JUDGMENT

PETITION ON ACCOUNT

FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

BREACH OF CONTRACT

ACCOUNT STATED

Open Acct

Petition on a consumer account

COMMON COUNTS

unjust enrichment

open book account

Public Access - Third Judicial District Court

click on link

This is our courthouse online for Shawnee County KS.This is where you will see who has filed on you,and updates on your case.

Go to last name type in your name or to see cases of other people, american express,visa,mastercard,discover card,ect.put a check in the civil,press search

You will see alot of names of attorneys and credit card cases

and all the defaults,very few fight back,SHOW UP FOR COURT FIGHT BACK. Its the gold standard till you object.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/ArbitrationTrap.pdf

http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Custom/article%20july%202012.pdf

Any information provided by me is generalized and for my informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute 16-118: Same; requirements; failure to comply. (a) A debtor or a creditor may not maintain an action for legal or equitable relief or a defense, based in either case upon a failure to perform on an alleged credit agreement, unless the material terms and conditions of the agreement are in writing and signed by the creditor and the debtor.

(B) All credit agreements shall contain a clear, conspicuous and printed notice to the debtor that states that the written credit agreement is a final expression of the credit agreement between the creditor and debtor and such written credit agreement may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior oral credit agreement or of a contemporaneous oral credit agreement between the creditor and debtor. A written credit agreement shall contain a sufficient space for the placement of nonstandard terms, including the reduction to writing of a previous oral credit agreement and an affirmation, signed or initialed by the debtor and the creditor, that no unwritten oral credit agreement between the parties exists.

© Failure to comply with provisions of subsections (a) and (B) shall preclude an action or defense based on any of the following legal or equitable theories: (1) An implied agreement based on course of dealing or performance or on a fiduciary relationship; (2) promissory or equitable estoppel; (3) part performance; or (4) negligent representation.

History: L. 1988, ch. 55, § 2; L. 1989, ch. 70, § 2; L. 1998, ch. 56, § 2; July 1.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shawnee county District Court web site has all the forms you will need.

Johnson County District Court has forms on line to use.

I dont know where you are but check your local court house,

If you cant find them.There are alot of examples here.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kansas Supreme Court has previously held that “an independent debt collection agency falls within the definition of a ‘supplier’ and is subject to the provisions of the KCPA” if three conditions are satisfied:

(1) The debt sought to be enforced came into being as a result of the consumer transaction;

(2) The parties to the original consumer transaction were a “supplier” and a “consumer” as defined by the act; and

(3) The conduct complained of, either deceptive or unconscionable, occurred during the collection of, or an attempt to collect, a debt which arose from the consumer transaction and was owed to the original supplier.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50-623: Kansas consumer protection act; purpose; construction. This act shall be construed liberally to promote the following policies:

(a) To simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing consumer transactions;

(B) to protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable practices;

© to protect consumers from unbargained for warranty disclaimers; and

(d) to provide consumers with a three-day cancellation period for door-to-door sales.

History: L. 1973, ch. 217, § 1; L. 1974, ch. 230, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 236, § 1; July 1

(l) "Supplier" means a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, seller, lessor, assignor, or other person who, in the ordinary course of business, solicits, engages in or enforces consumer transactions, whether or not dealing directly with the consumer. Supplier does not include any bank, trust company or lending institution which is subject to state or federal regulation with regard to disposition of repossessed collateral by such bank, trust company or lending institution.

History: L. 1973, ch. 217, § 2; L. 1974, ch. 230, § 2; L. 1976, ch. 236, § 2; L. 1983, ch. 179, § 1; L. 1991, ch. 159, § 1; L. 2001, ch. 49, § 1; L. 2005, ch. 22, § 1; L. 2009, ch. 67, § 1; July 1.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chapter 61 was enacted by the 1969 Legislature as the Code of Civil Procedure Before Courts of Limited Jurisdiction following a study done by the Legislative Council. The results of the Council's study were published in a pamphlet and submitted to the Legislature in late 1968. The report contained a proposed bill which essentially was enacted in full by the 1969 Legislature . The bill was based in large part on the law which formerly occupied Chapter 61 entitled the Code of Civil Procedure Before Justices of the Peace or more commonly called the Justice Code.

The objectives of the Legislative Council were (1) to standardize the jurisdiction, venue and remedies available in the various courts of limited jurisdiction, and (2) to make the procedure more compatible with the code of civil procedure. In meeting the second objective, the Council sought to retain the informality of pleading and shorter time frames found in the Justice Code. Certain discovery tools available under the Code of Civil Procedure (K.S.A., Chapter 60) were curtailed due to the limited amount in controversy and the volume of cases.

When the new Chapter 61 went into effect on January 1, 1970, we still had those lower courts in Kansas with names that sound odd today, like County Court, City Court, Magistrate Court and Court of Common Pleas. These were the courts of limited jurisdiction in the days before unification of our court system. When unification came in 1977, Chapter 61 was re-titled to what it is today.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few significant revisions were made by the 1990 Legislature following a second study done in 1988 by the Judicial Council. Their report was also published. This study was done in light of court unification which took effect earlier in 1977. Coming some eleven years after unification, it must have been a well thought out study. Most, if not all, of the changes suggested by this study were adopted by the Legislature in 1990.

To fully appreciate Chapter 61 as it exists today, you should read the two studies noted above. You should also read in its entirety the old Justice Code. The provisions of the Justice Code are not found now in the new statute books. This means digging into one of the older books such as the 1949 General Statutes of Kansas and risking some chance of injury from lifting a heavy book and certainly some dirty clothes as the old book disintegrates in your lap as you flip through the pages.

Chapter 61 is similar in many respects to Chapter 60. After all, we are talking about a code of civil procedure in each case. I won't mention those many areas that are similar. But there are key differences which many practitioners have difficulty with when first venturing into the waters of Chapter 61. Even seasoned veterans think that Chapter 61 is simply a junior version of Chapter 60 and that whatever is not covered under Chapter 61 is by default covered under Chapter 60. There was such a catchall provision in the Justice Code. However, I've looked long and hard for something similar in the new code and it is not there.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) Chapter 61 is complete unto itself in most respects and is intended to stand on its own without dependence upon Chapter 60. When the Legislature wanted to make a part of Chapter 60 applicable to Chapter 61, it simply adopted that procedure in Chapter 61 by reference to the Chapter 60 provision.

(2) Chapter 61 is designed basically as a fast, simple and easy system to use in debt collection and other relatively small dollar cases.

It is difficult to separate a discussion of Chapter 61 from debt collection cases. The streamlined procedures of Chapter 61 are well suited for these type of cases. Both parties (creditor and debtor) are well served by the low cost, speed and simplicity of the procedures. The creditor benefits from a system that allows a claim to be quickly put in judgment and without the need for high cost proceedures. The debtor benefits from a system that is simple and one that can often be navigated without the formality of paperwork or the assistance of an attorney.

Additionally, most cases filed under Chapter 61 are suits to collect debt. The statistics statewide reflect an explosion in Chapter 61 filings in the last five years. This is partly the result of the bad check law and a liberalization of the garnishment law in 1989.

You can, of course, collect debts under Chapter 60. You can do lots of things under Chapter 60. There are many things you cannot do under Chapter 61.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

four things under Chapter 61:

(1) sue for recovery of money on a contract for the provision of goods, services or money;

(2) sue for tort damages which do not exceed $10,000;

(3) sue to recover personal property which has a value of not more than $10,000; and

(4) sue for recovery of possession of real property under the forcible detainer procedure

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under K.S.A. 61-1603 a suit for recovery of money on a contract for the provision of goods, services or money has no limitation on the dollar amount as long as the debt is unsecured. This is a result of the 1990 revisions noted above. Suits in tort and on secured debt are limited to $10,000 (exclusive of costs and interest). These dollar limitations are jurisdictional. In other words, if you exceed the limits, there is no jurisdiction for the court to hear the case. If there is no jurisdiction, guess what kind of judgment you will end up with? (Hint, it has a funny smell.)

This was a more serious problem prior to the 1990 changes. Prior to then, the limit on all suits under Chapter 61 was $5,000. Many lawyers erroneously think that the 1990 change just upped the limit from $5,000 to $10,000 on all suits. Well now you know the truth and may it empower you to do great things under Chapter 61.

The second point to remember is that a forcible detainer can be brought under Chapter 61 regardless of the amount of rent owed. This was true even before the 1990 changes. This was probably so because there is no comparable procedure under Chapter 60 (unless you wish to try using ejectment under K.S.A. 60-1001). This second point may be less remarkable today since there is now no dollar limit on any type of suit based on unsecured debt.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing a lawyer representing a defendant in a Chapter 61 suit wants to know is: when do I file my Answer, and what does it say. Thankfully, most pro se defendants are not dying to know the answers to these questions. Well, you don't have to file an Answer under Chapter 61. All the defendant or counsel needs to do is get to the courthouse on the date and time specified in the Summons and enter a plea to the allegations of the Petition. Basically, the question to the defendant is, "Do you owe the money or not, yes or no?" Some courts even allow a defendant to enter their plea by telephone.

The time for appearance is determined by the court and shall be not less than 11 nor more than 35 days after the date the summons is issued. The summons must be served on the defendant in time to file a return of service as required by law. The return must be filed no later than 3 days before the appearance date for forcible detainer cases and no later than 5 days before the appearance date for all other cases.

If the defendant wishes to rely on an affirmative defense, the defendant must file an appropriate written pleading, either on or before the appearance date if no appearance is made, or within 10 days thereafter if an appearance is made. This is good to know at trial when the defendant for the first time trots out affirmative defenses such as payment or statute of limitations.

Secondly, the defendant may, but need not, file a counterclaim, as this is not mandatory under Chapter 61. If you are brave, you can compel by motion the filing of a counterclaim. But this can backfire and the defendant might actually file one, and then what do you do? I say it is better not to encourage such behavior.

If you are seeking punitive damages, your pleading should state the amount of punitive damages sought. Of course your damages cannot exceed $10,000 since most likely your claim will be based in tort and not in contract.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about discovery? Discovery is severely limited under Chapter 61 because of the relatively low dollars in controversy and the high volume of cases filed. Besides, what is it you really need to know about the other side's case? That they can't pay the bill?

If you wish to do discovery under Chapter 61 there are three main rules to remember:

(1) Only the plaintiff can use Request for Admissions. The time for the defendant to respond is 10 days.

(2) Interrogatories may be used only after the court has entered an order allowing their use. The response time is 15 days.

(3) Depositions may not be used for discovery but only as evidence at trial and only after the court has entered an order allowing the taking of the deposition.

If you find yourself in a suit under Chapter 61 and the fit is just too tight, you can move to transfer the case to Chapter 60. However, the right to do so is not automatic and good cause must be shown.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the defendant fails to answer or appear at the time specified in the summons, or at the time the matter has been set for trial, the plaintiff can request the court to enter default judgment without further notice. This is true even if the defendant has made a prior appearance in the case. Contrast this with the provision under Chapter 60.

The set aside of default judgments under Chapter 61 is noteworthy. The procedure under K.S.A. 60-260 (B) is to be followed except the motion shall be filed within 10 days from date of judgment when the defendant was personally served and within 45 days otherwise.

If you should have the misfortune of having one of your judgments set aside, particularly after attempting to enforce it, you can take comfort in the provisions of K.S.A. 61-1722 (e) which read as follows:

"(e) Whenever a party has commenced post-judgment proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment, and such judgment is subsequently set aside, reversed on appeal or otherwise nullified, such party shall not be liable for damages as a result of such postjudgment proceedings, unless it can be proven that the judgment upon which said proceedings were based was fraudulently obtained."

There is no comparable section under Chapter 60.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Special mention should be made of the 10 day rule imposed by K.S.A. 60-206, which says that the 10 days within which to act means 10 business days and not 10 calendar days. This rule applies to Chapter 61 and is significant because so many deadlines under Chapter 61 are 10 day deadlines (responsive pleadings, answers to request for admission, set aside of default judgments, etc.).

And speaking of 10 days, does the 10 day stay under K.S.A. 60-262 apply to judgments under Chapter 61? Probably not. K.S.A. 60-262 has not been incorporated under Chapter 61 by K.S.A. 61-1725. There are two provisions under Chapter 61 relating to a stay upon appeal. A forcible detainer is stayed if an appeal is taken. An order of garnishment may not be issued under Chapter 61 until 10 days after judgment. Finally, the Justice Code had provisions for a stay of a judgment. None of these provisions were carried over to the new Chapter 61.

All of the above support the argument that if the Legislature had intended for there to be a general stay of execution under Chapter 61, it would have specifically enacted such a provision. Absent that, you are probably free to begin enforcing your Chapter 61 judgment immediately after entry of judgment except by garnishment.

It is clear that after entry of judgment in a forcible detainer action, a writ of restitution can be issued and served immediately

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

judgments:

1. There is no provision in Chapter 61 for the renewal or extension of judgments. I have heard it argued that the appropriate provisions of Chapter 60 to renew or extend a judgment do not apply to Chapter 61 judgments. The procedure to renew or extend judgments in Chapter 60 is in Article 24. K.S.A. 60-2403 (a) seems to apply to "... the entry of any judgment in any court of record in this state..." (emphasis provided by me). After unification we have only one district court and it is a court of record.

But if the provisions of K.S.A. 60-2403 (a) are meant to apply to Chapter 61 judgments, why did the Legislature add at the end of that section the provision that when a judgment goes dormant it ceases to be a lien on the real estate of the debtor? Chapter 61 judgments do not operate as liens on real estate.

And again, this is reinforced in the provisions of K.S.A. 60-2418 which allows a Chapter 61 judgment to be transcribed and become a Chapter 60 judgment. Why did the Legislature see fit to provide in subsection (B) that judgments so transcribed which become dormant can be revived in the same manner as other judgments in the district court? Does this mean that before a Chapter 61 judgment is transcribed it cannot be revived?

The Legislature may have intended that only judgments which are liens on real estate should have a terminable existence, and that judgments which are merely personal in nature (no lien on real estate) could live forever, subject only to the life of the judgment debtor. Perhaps the idea was to avoid a perpetual clouding of title to real estate.

K.S.A. 61-2201 provides that all executions under Chapter 61 shall be taken in the manner provided in Article 24 of Chapter 60. As noted above, the procedure for renewal and extension of judgments is covered under K.S.A. 60-2403 and K.S.A. 60-2404 which is a part of Article 24.

Under the Justice Code, K.S.A. 61-1201 specifically provided that Chapter 61 judgments had a life of five years and that this life could be extended by issuance of an execution. The table of comparative sections at the beginning of the new Chapter 61 indicates that K.S.A. 61-1201 is now covered by K.S.A. 61-2201. As noted above, K.S.A. 61-2201 directs you to Article 24 of Chapter 60.

It may well be that the Legislature intended for Chapter 61 judgments to be renewable but forgot to clean up the procedures of Chapter 60 after the Justice Code was repealed. Chapter 61 judgments go dormant unless the activity outlined in K.S.A. 60-2403 is pursued.

2. There are two ways you can make a Chapter 61 judgment operate as a lien on real estate.

a. One way is under K.S.A. 60-2202 (B) where you can file your Chapter 61 journal entry of judgment in any county (including the county where the judgment was originally obtained) and pay a $5.00 fee under K.S.A. 28-170, and magically the judgment becomes a lien against the non-exempt real estate of the debtor in whatever county you file in.

K.S.A. 60-2202 (a) says that you can only issue executions in the county where the judgment was originally issued. Subsection (B) does not have this language. K.S.A. 28-170 says the $5.00 fee only buys you the right to file a judgment "on which execution process cannot be issued." K.S.A. 61-2201 says you cannot execute on real estate under a Chapter 61 judgment except as provided in K.S.A. 60-2418. Under K.S.A. 60-2202 (B) you may end up with a judgment lien that cannot be enforced.

b. The other way is to transcribe the Chapter 61 judgment under K.S.A. 60-2418 in the same county and pay a $15.00 fee. Then the clerk renumbers the case (presumably giving it a new Chapter 60 case number) and the judgment becomes a lien on the real estate of the debtor in that county. Further execution to satisfy the judgment is taken as for a judgment originally entered under Chapter 60.

Then if you wish to file in another county, you follow the procedure under K.S.A. 60-2202 (a) and pay a $5.00 fee to the other county. That section is clear that all executions are to be issued from the original county and of course, since you now have a Chapter 60 judgment, there is no restriction upon execution against real estate.

Many will wonder why this business of liens against real estate has any significance under Chapter 61. Most debtors who are sued under Chapter 61 either don't own any real estate or what they own is their homestead and hence, exempt from judgment liens.

3.The interest rate on Chapter 61 judgments is 12%.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Chapter 60, you can eventually have a civil bench warrant issued if the debtor declines your invitation to appear in court. The statute says that a bench warrant may be issued, "...If after proper service of the citation by any officer or other person ..." The same results can be affected under Chapter 61. However, the statute there says that the bench warrant may be issued, "...If after proper service of the citation by the sheriff, ..."

This didn't used to be such a big deal, as the sheriff served most, if not all, civil process. But after the 1992 changes to K.S.A. 60-303 © (3) and K.S.A. 61-1803 © (3), much process, and particularly contempt citations, is now served by special process servers.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chapter 61 is not a junior version of Chapter 60 and proceedings are not the same under each Chapter. Chapter 61 is designed as a fast, simple and easy system to use in debt collection cases. Chapter 60 is better suited for more complicated matters, what sometimes some lawyers refer to as "real lawsuits".

There is a perception among those who practice in Chapter 61 that many of the bench and bar generally tend to overlook Chapter 61 and the goings on there. Who really cares about Chapter 61? Does it matter?

It matters because of the high volume of cases filed under Chapter 61 and the tremendous revenue generated by these cases.

Additionally, cases under Chapter 61 tend to produce a lot of papers filed with the clerks. The bench and bar as well as the Legislature should constantly be looking at ways to expedite Chapter 61 matters.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

61-2905. Counterclaims and cross-claims. (a) (1) Upon timely application of the plaintiff and in the discretion of the court, a defendant may be required to plead any counterclaim which such party has against the plaintiff, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, except that the defendant shall not be required to plead any such claim if: (A) At the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action; or (B) the plaintiff brought suit upon such plaintiff’s claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the defendant is not pleading any other counterclaim.

(2) A defendant shall not be estopped from asserting in a subsequent action any claim which such defendant may have against the plaintiff, if such defendant is not required to plead such claim pursuant to this section. Except as provided in subsections (a) and (k), the provisions of K.S.A. 60-213, and amendments thereto, relating to counterclaims and cross-claims, shall apply to proceedings pursuant to the code of civil procedure for limited actions, subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 61-2911, and amendments thereto.

(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), in an action involving a claim governed by K.S.A. 60-258a, and amendments thereto, a party shall state as a counterclaim any claim that party has against any opposing party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claim governed by K.S.A. 60-258a, and amendments thereto.

History:

L. 2000, ch. 161, § 11; Jan. 1, 2001

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About RCAN

RCAN (Retail Collection Attorney Network) was founded by two high profile Collection Industry companies, Columbia Financial International, Inc. and the Collection Industry News, that have come together for the purpose of creating a powerful internet portal aimed at showcasing highly skilled retail collection attorneys and Collection Industry vendor products and services on the world wide web.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RCAN is the most visible retail collection attorney network on the internet and is viewed by a greater number of Credit and Collection Industry professionals than any other resource. The founders of RCAN attend and maintain membership in the following associations: Commercial Law League of America, American Collectors Association, The National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys, The Debt Buyers Association and The International Association of Commercial Collectors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ancillary Web Advertising Opportunities Also Available: Columbia Financial International, Inc., operates a large number of ancillary web sites in addition to CollectionIndustryNews.com and RCAN. Advertisers have numerous opportunities to cross-market on our sister company websites.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RCAN sister companies include: The Columbia Law List, Top Ten Marketing, CFI Data Search, Your Virtual Spokesperson, Private Eye Verify, Find Bank Accounts, Attorneys Online, theXchange, Agency Collectors, Collection Workforce, Collection Boulevard, Claim Forwarders, Debtmonitor, Debt Sellers, Legal Leads Broker and many more!

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kansas Credit Attorneys Association

2001 Members

(first phone number is telephone, second is fax number)

Thomas Adrian

Attorney at Law

301 North Main # 400

P O Box 825

Newton KS 67114

(316)283-8746

(316)

Harvey, Butler, Sedwick, Reno, Marion, & McPherson

Donald C. Astle

Attorney at Law

727 N Waco, #210

P O Box 84

Wichiata KS 67201-0084

(316)262-3007

(316)264-9273

Sedgwick, Harvey, Reno, Butler, cowley, Sumner, Kingman, McPherson

Alan Bibler

Bibler & Newman, P.A.

525 SE 37th, Suite B

Topeka KS 66605-2874

(785)267-0660

(785)267-0660

Shawnee, Douglas, Riley,Jefferson, Osage, Saline and eastern Kansas

Marion Burns

Attorney at Law

P O Box 487

Lyndon KS 66451-0487

(785)828-4418

(785)828-3269

Jo Ann Butaud

Evans & Mullinix

7225 Renner Rd #200

Shawnee, Ks. 66217

(913)962-8700

(913)962-8702

Craig S. Crosswhite

Attorney at Law

309 Main St

P.O. Box 266

Jetmore, Ks. 67854

(316)357-8508

(316)357-6216

Carl B. Davis

Davis & Jack

2121 W. Maple

Wichita, KS 67212

(316)945-8251

(316)945-2789

Douglas DeZube

Ullman & DeZube

10100 W. 87th St.

Overland Park KS 66212

(913) 385-0355

(913) 385-1948

Donald Frigon

Attorney at Law

602 N. Second Ave

PO Box 1695

Dodge City, Ks. 67801

(316)225-0600

(316)225-4922

E. Dexter Galloway

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1265

17 West 2nd

Hutchinson, KS 67504-1265

(316)662-0191

(316)662-6008

Mike Gragert

Gragert, Heibert & Gray

Attorney at Law

245 N. Waco # 200

Wichita, KS 67202

(316)265-9480

(316)265-0168

Darryl Graves

Attorney at Law

5030 W 15th, #C

Lawrence KS 66049

785-843-8117

785-843-0492

Richard Haitbrink

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 2532

Shawnee Mission, Ks. 66201

(913)328-1100

(913)287-1919

(480)595-0518

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael W. Hassenplug

Attorney at Law

114 W 8th

PO Box 1177

Coffeyville, Ks. 67337

(316)251-8300

(316)251-8382

(316)251-8384

Leslie Hess

119 Military Ave.

P.O. Box 1435

Dodge City, Ks 67801

C. Dean Homolka II

Attorney at Law

200 E. 1st #542

Wichita, KS 67202

(316)263-6950

(316)263-9136

H. Kent Hollins

Attorney at Law

3615 S.W. 29th St.

Topeka KS 66614

785-272-0833

785-272-5648

Fred A. Johnson

Busch & Johnson

1540 N. Broadway

Suite 205

Wichita KS 67214-1195

316-263-5661

316-263-9826

Kahrs Law Offices, P.A.

200 West Douglas Avenue

Suite 102

Wichita, Kansas 67202

(316)269-4343

(316)265-1206

William J. Kelly

Attorney at Law

PO Box 331

113 S. 8th

Independence, Ks. 67301

(316)331-2071

(316) 331-4779

Stuart M. Kowalski

Kowalski Law Offices, LLC

P O Box 47068

Wichita, Ks 67201

316-943-0858

877-286-4341 (toll free)

316-943-0858 (fax)

Tom Valentine

Thomas A. Valentine, PA

112 W 7th, Suite 200

Topeka, Ks. 66603

(785)357-0021

(785)357-1548

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry N. Zimmerman

Thomas A. Valentine, PA

112 W 7th, Suite 200

Topeka, Ks. 66603

(785)357-0021

(785)357-1548

Bruce C. Ward

Attorney at Law

239 S Pattie, Suite 1

Wichita, Ks. 67211

(316)683-5637

E. Lou Bjorgaard Probasco

Attorney at Law

615 S Topeka Blvd.

Topeka, Ks. 66603

(785)233-2332

(785)233-2384

Walter N. Scott, Jr

Attorney at Law

420 W 33rd

Topeka, Ks. 66611

(785)266-4220

(785)266-4321

Theron L. Sims

214S.W. 6th St.

Topeka, KS 66603

785-233-0993 x303

785-233-0994

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Challenges for Collecting Purchased Debt

James M. McNeile

Cohen McNeile Pappas & Shuttleworth P.C., Leawood, Kansas

All of us know it is more difficult to collect purchased debt than originated debt by using the traditional legal collection

approach. The difficulties from a lawyer's perspective lie mainly in problems of proof. A creditor that originates debt has

access to the documentation that courts require attorneys to introduce as evidence in order to obtain a judgment. Many debt

purchasers either do not have access to the source documents or can only obtain those documents at great cost. How then can

debt purchasers utilize the court system to collect debts that are legally due and valid? Ken Gelhaus reports that in New York

the problems of collecting on purchased debt have increased greatly in the last year. At one time in New York, court clerks

entered a default judgment on claims for "sums certain" without running the papers past a judge for review and signature. In

recent months, however, clerks are refusing to do so and requiring that a judge's order granting default judgment be obtained.

In one of his recent cases, Ken reports that he applied for a default judgment using the affidavit of an officer of the

purchasing plaintiff. The affidavit, although able to reference the date of the purchase of the debt and the balance purchased,

was deficient in that it did not include any actual business records of the originating creditor. The court found that the

affidavit of the debt purchaser was insufficient and conclusory. The court suggested the debt purchaser furnish a copy of the

assignment or contract assigning the claims, along with a copy of any statement or record clearly demonstrating the

calculation and the amount of the claim. If monthly statements were furnished to the defendant, copies of the most recently

sent statements should be annexed. Reliable and factual information concerning the claim is required

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute 60-208: General rules of pleadings. (a) Claims for relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain: (1) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems such pleader's self entitled. Every pleading demanding relief for damages in money in excess of $75,000, without demanding any specific amount of money, shall set forth only that the amount sought as damages is in excess of $75,000, except in actions sounding in contract. Every pleading demanding relief for damages in money in an amount of $75,000 or less shall specify the amount of such damages sought to be recovered. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

(B) Defenses; form of denials. A party shall state in short and plain terms such party's defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or deny the averments upon which the adverse party relies. If the party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an averment, the party shall so state and this has the effect of a denial. Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the averments denied. When a pleader intends in good faith to deny only a part or a qualification of an averment, the pleader shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Unless the pleader intends in good faith to controvert all the averments of the preceding pleading, the pleader may make denials as specific denials of designated averments or paragraphs, or the pleader may generally deny all the averments except such designated averments or paragraphs as the pleader expressly admits; but, when the pleader does so intend to controvert all averments, the pleader may do so by general denial, subject to the obligations set forth in K.S.A. 60-211, and amendments thereto.

© Affirmative defenses. In pleading to a preceding pleading a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. When a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court on terms, if justice so requires, shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation.

(d) Effect of failure to deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required or permitted, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.

(e) Pleading to be concise and direct; consistency. (1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required.

(2) A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in one count or defense or in separate counts or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both. All statements shall be made subject to the obligations set forth in K.S.A. 60-211, and amendments thereto.

(f) Construction of pleadings. All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-208; L. 1976, ch. 252, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 203, § 1; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 4; July 1.

Any information provided by me is generalized and for informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by racecar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this