K.S.A. » Chapter 50
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 50-637 (2026)

Powers of receiver; effect of receivership

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

50-637. Powers of receiver; effect of receivership. (a) When a receiver is appointed by the court pursuant to this act, the receiver shall have the power to sue for, collect, receive and take into the receiver's possession all the property and chattels, rights and credits, moneys and effects, lands and tenements, books, records, documents, papers, choses in action, bills, notes and property of every description, including property with which such property has been commingled, if it cannot be identified in kind because of such commingling, and to sell, convey and assign the same and hold and dispose of the proceeds thereof under the direction of the court. Any person who has suffered damages as a result of the use or employment of any practice declared to be a violation of this act and submits proof to the satisfaction of the court that the person has in fact been damaged, may participate in the distribution of the assets.

(b) Subject to an order of the court terminating the business affairs of any supplier who is the subject of receivership proceedings held pursuant to this act, the provisions of this act shall not bar any claim by a consumer against any person who has acquired any money or property, real or personal, or anything of value by means of any practice herein declared to be a violation of this act.

History: L. 1973, ch. 217, § 15; L. 1976, ch. 236, § 7; L. 1991, ch. 159, § 10; July 1.

KANSAS COMMENT, 1973

This section provides for the mechanics of a receivership in connection with a court action for violation of the act. There was a comparable provision in the old Buyer Protection Act (former K.S.A. 50-609).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Cited; language stamped on lease resurrecting improperly disclaimed warranties examined. Agristor Leasing v. Meuli, 634 F. Supp. 1208, 1219 (1986).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Schweizer v. DeKalb Swine Breeders, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 1495 (D. Kan. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schweizer v. DeKalb Swine Breeders, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 1495 (D. Kan. 1997). “50-639 would not appear to create a separate (and duplicative to K.SA. 50-637) claim for damages for violation of the KCPA.”
Huffman v. Blue Compass RV, LLC (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 4× “Additionally, she alleges that Forest River violated K.S.A. § 50-637(a)(2) when the consumer transaction was entered into because the “price grossly exceeded the price at which similar property or services were readily obtainable in similar transactions by similar consumers” as…”
Schneider v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (D. Kan. 2021). · cites it 3× “For example, in paragraph 6, Plaintiffs claim Defendant violated “K.S.A. 50-637” because “violations the hearing, prior to her filing of the Second Amended Complaint she is required to first submit the amended pleading to the undersigned, no later than August 17, 2021.”
Delaware Ridge Homes Assn. v. Maddy (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “" However, Maddy asserted that Bye should be appointed as a "receiver," under either K.S.A. 50-637 or K.S.A. 60-1301, to administer both the board election and the turnover of Delaware Ridge to homeowner control.”
— K.S.A. § 50-637(a)(2) — 1 case
Huffman v. Blue Compass RV, LLC (D. Kan. 2024). “Additionally, she alleges that Forest River violated K.S.A. § 50-637(a)(2) when the consumer transaction was entered into because the “price grossly exceeded the price at which similar property or services were readily obtainable in similar transactions by similar consumers” as…”
— K.S.A. § 50-637(a)(3) — 1 case
Huffman v. Blue Compass RV, LLC (D. Kan. 2024). “Additionally, she alleges that Forest River violated K.S.A. § 50-637(a)(2) when the consumer transaction was entered into because the “price grossly exceeded the price at which similar property or services were readily obtainable in similar transactions by similar consumers” as…”
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.