K.S.A. » Chapter 23
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 23-2801 (2026)

Marital property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

23-2801. Marital property. (a) All property owned by married persons, including the present value of any vested or unvested military retirement pay, or, for divorce or separate maintenance actions commenced on or after July 1, 1998, professional goodwill to the extent that it is marketable for that particular professional, whether described in K.S.A. 23-2601, and amendments thereto, or acquired by either spouse after marriage, and whether held individually or by the spouses in some form of co-ownership, such as joint tenancy or tenancy in common, shall become marital property at the time of commencement by one spouse against the other of an action in which a final decree is entered for divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment.

(b) Each spouse has a common ownership in marital property which vests at the time of commencement of such action, the extent of the vested interest to be determined and finalized by the court, pursuant to K.S.A. 23-2802, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 2011, ch. 26, § 12; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: In re Marriage of Williams, 417 P.3d 1033 (Kan. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Marriage of Williams, 417 P.3d 1033 (Kan. 2018). “And marital property includes military retirement benefits under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 23-2801, which provides that Kansas district courts can treat as marital property "the present value of any vested or unvested military retirement pay .”
In re Marriage of Thrailkill, 452 P.3d 392 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 23-2801; In re Marriage of Williams, 307 Kan.”
State v. Bollinger, 352 P.3d 1003 (Kan. 2015). “” Although Brenna had not yet served Bollinger with process before her death, she had commenced the action, and this court will not endorse the cynical conclusion that a party may validly avoid service of process and the commencement of an action by killing the opposing party.”
Fox v. Fox., 322 P.3d 400 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “The statute states in relevant part: “All property owned by married persons, including die present value of any vested or unvested military retirement pay, .”
In re Marriage of Meek (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 14× “That means the district court should have included both Aaron's and Nancy's personal injury awards as marital property under K.S.A. 23-2801 subject to equitable division pursuant to K.”
Aracely Vazquez (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “17 The purpose of the homestead exemption is to protect the family from destitution and to benefit society by preventing its citizens from becoming paupers or public charges.”
Aracely Vazquez (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “17 The purpose of the homestead exemption is to protect the family from destitution and to benefit society by preventing its citizens from becoming paupers or public charges.”
Horacio Vazquez (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “17 The purpose of the homestead exemption is to protect the family from destitution and to benefit society by preventing its citizens from becoming paupers or public charges.”
In re Marriage of Perales, 463 P.3d 427 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-2801. So the house was subject to equitable division by the court to either party even though Gary had signed a quitclaim deed giving full title to Cynthia.”
In re Marriage of Van Asten (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “He contends that "[a]n appropriate reading of the [In re Marriage of] Allen case is that the court is not bound by the earlier Separation Agreement and Decree, but, that a property settlement agreement from a previous divorce defines the property that each party brings to a…”
In re Marriage of Hardin (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “Analysis A district court's division of property in a divorce action is governed by K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 23-2801 et seq. Although the ultimate division of property must be just and reasonable, it need not be equal.”
In re Marriage of Elfgren & Hendrickson (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “District courts are required to divide the parties' real and personal property pursuant to K.S.A. 23-2801 et seq. Relevant here, the family law code requires district courts "shall consider .”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 23-2801(a) — 14 cases
In re Marriage of Thrailkill, 452 P.3d 392 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 23-2801; In re Marriage of Williams, 307 Kan.”
Fox v. Fox., 322 P.3d 400 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “The statute states in relevant part: “All property owned by married persons, including die present value of any vested or unvested military retirement pay, .”
In re Marriage of Meek (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “That means the district court should have included both Aaron's and Nancy's personal injury awards as marital property under K.S.A. 23-2801 subject to equitable division pursuant to K.”
In re Marriage of English (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
In re Marriage of Bean & Johnson (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
— K.S.A. § 23-2801(b) — 5 cases
In re Marriage of Meek (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “That means the district court should have included both Aaron's and Nancy's personal injury awards as marital property under K.S.A. 23-2801 subject to equitable division pursuant to K.”
In re Marriage of Robinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
Aracely Vazquez (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “17 The purpose of the homestead exemption is to protect the family from destitution and to benefit society by preventing its citizens from becoming paupers or public charges.”
Aracely Vazquez (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “17 The purpose of the homestead exemption is to protect the family from destitution and to benefit society by preventing its citizens from becoming paupers or public charges.”
Horacio Vazquez (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “17 The purpose of the homestead exemption is to protect the family from destitution and to benefit society by preventing its citizens from becoming paupers or public charges.”
— K.S.A. § 23-2801(c) — 1 case
In re Marriage of Zillinger (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.