K.S.A. » Chapter 56a
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 56a-601 (2026)

Events causing partner's dissociation

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

56a-601. Events causing partner's dissociation. A partner is dissociated from a partnership upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

(a) The partnership's having notice of the partner's express will to withdraw as a partner or on a later date specified by the partner;

(b) an event agreed to in the partnership agreement as causing the partner's dissociation;

(c) the partner's expulsion pursuant to the partnership agreement;

(d) the partner's expulsion by the unanimous vote of the other partners if:

(1) It is unlawful to carry on the partnership business with that partner;

(2) there has been a transfer of all or substantially all of that partner's transferable interest in the partnership, other than a transfer for security purposes, or a court order charging the partner's interest, which has not been foreclosed;

(3) within 90 days after the partnership notifies a corporate partner that it will be expelled because it has filed a certificate of dissolution or the equivalent, its charter has been revoked, or its right to conduct business has been suspended by the jurisdiction of its incorporation, there is no revocation of the certificate of dissolution or no reinstatement of its charter or its right to conduct business; or

(4) a partnership that is a partner has been dissolved and its business is being wound up;

(e) on application by the partnership or another partner, the partner's expulsion by judicial determination because:

(1) The partner engaged in wrongful conduct that adversely and materially affected the partnership business;

(2) the partner willfully or persistently committed a material breach of the partnership agreement or of a duty owed to the partnership or the other partners under K.S.A. 56a-404; or

(3) the partner engaged in conduct relating to the partnership business which makes it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with the partner;

(f) the partner's:

(1) Becoming a debtor in bankruptcy;

(2) executing an assignment for the benefit of creditors;

(3) seeking, consenting to, or acquiescing in the appointment of a trustee, receiver, or liquidator of that partner or of all or substantially all of that partner's property; or

(4) failing, within 90 days after the appointment, to have vacated or stayed the appointment of a trustee, receiver, or liquidator of the partner or of all or substantially all of the partner's property obtained without the partner's consent or acquiescence, or failing within 90 days after the expiration of a stay to have the appointment vacated;

(g) in the case of a partner who is an individual:

(1) The partner's death;

(2) the appointment of a guardian or general conservator for the partner; or

(3) a judicial determination that the partner has otherwise become incapable of performing the partner's duties under the partnership agreement;

(h) in the case of a partner that is a trust or is acting as a partner by virtue of being a trustee of a trust, distribution of the trust's entire transferable interest in the partnership, but not merely by reason of the substitution of a successor trustee;

(i) in the case of a partner that is an estate or is acting as a partner by virtue of being a personal representative of an estate, distribution of the estate's entire transferable interest in the partnership, but not merely by reason of the substitution of a successor personal representative; or

(j) termination of a partner who is not an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, or estate.

History: L. 1998, ch. 93, § 30; January 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Welch v. via Christi Health Partners, Inc., 133 P.3d 122 (Kan. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Welch v. via Christi Health Partners, Inc., 133 P.3d 122 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 20× “The defendants contend that one does not reach or use K.S.A. 56a-601 (KUPA) for .dissociation resulting from withdrawal be *743 cause withdrawal of a limited partner is specifically provided for in K.”
Giles v. Giles Land Co., L.P., 279 P.3d 139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “Kelly appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the counterclaim filed by the defendants, which included Norman and Dolores Giles along with their six other children, seeking the dissociation of Kelly from the partnership, under K.S.A. 56a-601. The trial court also denied…”
Ac Ocean Walk, Llc. v. Blue Ocean Waters, Llc. (2024). · cites it 3× “The trial court's summary judgment order to dissociate Blue Ocean Waters was due to Blue Ocean Waters' singular act of refusing to respond to AC Ocean Walk's notice of breach. While the noted other jurisdictions did not rely upon a singular act to dissociate a partner, Blue…”
Gibson v. Gibson Fam. Ltd. P'ship, 2016 SD 26 (S.D. 2016). “3d 139, 144 (2012)) (upholding dissociation under K.S.A. 56a-601(e)(l), and (e)(3), which are identical to SDCL 48-7A-601(5)(i), and' (5)(iii)); Robertson v.”
Graves Farms (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
Graves Farms (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
Harold Dean Graves & Karen Lynn Graves (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
Michael Keith Graves & Rachelle Rae Graves (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(a) — 1 case
Welch v. via Christi Health Partners, Inc., 133 P.3d 122 (Kan. 2006). “The defendants contend that one does not reach or use K.S.A. 56a-601 (KUPA) for .dissociation resulting from withdrawal be *743 cause withdrawal of a limited partner is specifically provided for in K.”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(c) — 1 case
Welch v. via Christi Health Partners, Inc., 133 P.3d 122 (Kan. 2006). “The defendants contend that one does not reach or use K.S.A. 56a-601 (KUPA) for .dissociation resulting from withdrawal be *743 cause withdrawal of a limited partner is specifically provided for in K.”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(d) — 1 case
Welch v. via Christi Health Partners, Inc., 133 P.3d 122 (Kan. 2006). “The defendants contend that one does not reach or use K.S.A. 56a-601 (KUPA) for .dissociation resulting from withdrawal be *743 cause withdrawal of a limited partner is specifically provided for in K.”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(e) — 1 case
Giles v. Giles Land Co., L.P., 279 P.3d 139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Kelly appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the counterclaim filed by the defendants, which included Norman and Dolores Giles along with their six other children, seeking the dissociation of Kelly from the partnership, under K.S.A. 56a-601. The trial court also denied…”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(e)(1) — 2 cases
Giles v. Giles Land Co., L.P., 279 P.3d 139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Kelly appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the counterclaim filed by the defendants, which included Norman and Dolores Giles along with their six other children, seeking the dissociation of Kelly from the partnership, under K.S.A. 56a-601. The trial court also denied…”
Ac Ocean Walk, Llc. v. Blue Ocean Waters, Llc. (2024). “The trial court's summary judgment order to dissociate Blue Ocean Waters was due to Blue Ocean Waters' singular act of refusing to respond to AC Ocean Walk's notice of breach. While the noted other jurisdictions did not rely upon a singular act to dissociate a partner, Blue…”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(e)(3) — 2 cases
Giles v. Giles Land Co., L.P., 279 P.3d 139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Kelly appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the counterclaim filed by the defendants, which included Norman and Dolores Giles along with their six other children, seeking the dissociation of Kelly from the partnership, under K.S.A. 56a-601. The trial court also denied…”
Ac Ocean Walk, Llc. v. Blue Ocean Waters, Llc. (2024). “The trial court's summary judgment order to dissociate Blue Ocean Waters was due to Blue Ocean Waters' singular act of refusing to respond to AC Ocean Walk's notice of breach. While the noted other jurisdictions did not rely upon a singular act to dissociate a partner, Blue…”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(e)(l) — 2 cases
Giles v. Giles Land Co., L.P., 279 P.3d 139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Kelly appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting the counterclaim filed by the defendants, which included Norman and Dolores Giles along with their six other children, seeking the dissociation of Kelly from the partnership, under K.S.A. 56a-601. The trial court also denied…”
Gibson v. Gibson Fam. Ltd. P'ship, 2016 SD 26 (S.D. 2016). “3d 139, 144 (2012)) (upholding dissociation under K.S.A. 56a-601(e)(l), and (e)(3), which are identical to SDCL 48-7A-601(5)(i), and' (5)(iii)); Robertson v.”
— K.S.A. § 56a-601(f)(1) — 4 cases
Graves Farms (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
Graves Farms (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
Harold Dean Graves & Karen Lynn Graves (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
Michael Keith Graves & Rachelle Rae Graves (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019). “45 § 56a-601(f)(1). 46 This Court has no power to simply ignore their dissocation and permit them to continue in the partnership in the usual course.”
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.