K.S.A. » Chapter 33
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 33-101 (2026)

Trusts

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

33-101. Trusts. All gifts and conveyances of goods and chattels, made in trust to the use of the person or persons making the same shall, to the full extent of both the corpus and income made in trust to such use, be void and of no effect, regardless of motive, as to all past, present or future creditors; but otherwise shall be valid and effective.

History: G.S. 1868, ch. 43, § 1; R.S. 1923, 33-101; L. 1949, ch. 274, § 1; June 30.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2025 · leading case: McCarty v. State Bank of Fredonia, 795 P.2d 940 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McCarty v. State Bank of Fredonia, 795 P.2d 940 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “2d 1 (1964), that Ralph is precluded from transferring away Mary’s spousal share without her'consent pursuant to K.S.A. 33-101 and K.S.A. 59-602(2). Clarence appeals.”
United States v. Krause (In Re Krause), 386 B.R. 785 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2008). · cites it 5× “Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 33-101 , 33-102 (2000).”
Ed Dewitte Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Fin. Assocs. Midwest, Inc., 427 P.3d 25 (Kan. 2018). “: *27 This case is about the statute of frauds, codified in Kansas at K.S.A. 33-101 et seq. As its name suggests, the statute was designed to prevent fraud by requiring parties to reduce certain oral agreements to writing.”
Redmond v. Kester, 159 P.3d 1004 (Kan. 2007). “58a-505(a)(l) provides: “(a) Except as provided by K.S.A. 33-101 et seq. [fraudulent conveyances] and 33-201 et seq.”
Gross v. Douglass State Bank, 261 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Kan. 1965). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 33-101 provides: “33-101. Trusts. All gifts and conveyances of goods and chattels, made in trust to the use of the person or persons making the same shall, to the full extent of both the corpus and income made in trust to such use, be void and of no effect, regardless of…”
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 843 P.2d 240 (Kan. 1992). “1949, 33-101 (now K.S.A. 33-101), which provides: “All gifts and conveyances of goods and chattels, made in trust to the use of the person or persons making the same shall, to the full extent of both the corpus and income made in trust to such use, be void and of no effect,…”
In Re Hayes, 168 B.R. 717 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. § 33-101. The court went on to rule that K.”
Newman Ex Rel. Ausemus v. George, 755 P.2d 18 (Kan. 1988). “See K.S.A. 33-101. The Ackers court noted the amendment had not been previously interpreted, but found the intent and purpose of the legislature to be clear: “If the settlor retained the control over the corpus of the trust such as the right to remove the trust assets or the…”
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 7 P.3d 1241 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 2× “33-101 reinforces this principle in the following terms: “All gifts and conveyances of goods and chattels, made in trust to the use of tire person or persons making the same shall, to the full extent of both the corpus and income made in trust to such use, be void and of no…”
Est. of Ingram v. Ingalls, 510 P.2d 597 (Kan. 1973). “33-101 (now K.S.A. 33-101) the statutory change had little significance in that case for it is part of the statute of frauds.”
State Ex Rel. Sec'y of Soc. & Rehab. Servs. v. Jackson, 803 P.2d 1045 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “” K.S.A. 33-101 contains a general rule regarding the claims of creditors against a trust beneficiary and provides: “All gifts and conveyances of goods and chattels, made in trust to the use of the person or persons making the same shall, to the full extent of both the corpus…”
Ackers v. First Nat'l Bank of Topeka, 388 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1964). “The Morrison case was governed by the provision of § 33-101 before its amendment in 1949; the corpus of the trust constituted but a very small part of the settlor’s estate; the wife was the final beneficiary of the trust; the dispute was between the representatives of the…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.