K.S.A. » Chapter 58
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 58-2572 (2026)

Certain retaliatory actions by landlord prohibited; remedies; increased rent, when; action for possession, when

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

58-2572. Certain retaliatory actions by landlord prohibited; remedies; increased rent, when; action for possession, when. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent or decreasing services after:

(1) The tenant has complained to a governmental agency, charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building or housing code, of a violation applicable to the premises materially affecting health and safety; or

(2) the tenant has complained to the landlord of a violation under K.S.A. 58-2553; or

(3) the tenant has organized or become a member of a tenants' union or similar organization.

(b) If the landlord acts in violation of subsection (a) of this section, the tenant is entitled to the remedies provided in K.S.A. 58-2563 and has a defense in an action against such tenant for possession.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the landlord may increase the rent of a tenant even though the tenant has complained of a violation as described in clauses (1) or (2) of subsection (a) or has organized or become a member of an organization as described in clause (3) of subsection (a), if such rent increase does not conflict with a lease agreement in effect and is made in good faith to compensate the landlord for expenses incurred as a result of acts of God, public utility service rate increases, property tax increases or other increases in costs of operations.

(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), a landlord may bring an action for possession if:

(1) The violation of the applicable building or housing code was caused primarily by lack of reasonable care by the tenant or other person or animal or pet upon the premises with his or her express or implied consent;

(2) the tenant is in default in rent; or

(3) compliance with the applicable building or housing code requires alteration, remodeling or demolition which would effectively deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit. The maintenance of an action under this subsection does not release the landlord from liability under subsection (b) of K.S.A. 58-2559.

History: L. 1975, ch. 290, § 33; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Clark v. Walker, 590 P.2d 1043 (Kan. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clark v. Walker, 590 P.2d 1043 (Kan. 1979). “In addition, the landlord may not retaliate against a tenant for such actions as attempting to enforce his rights, complaining about housing or health code violations, or joining a tenant’s organization (K.S.A. 58-2572). While we have not attempted to list all of the provisions…”
Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 373 S.E.2d 489 (W. Va. 1988). “Code Ann. § 55-248.39. 8 .' Cal.Civ.Code § 1942.”
Espenschied v. Mallick, 633 A.2d 388 (D.C. 1993). “36; Kan.Stat.Ann. § 58-2572; Ky. *391 Rev.Stat.”
Case & Assocs. Props. Inc. v. Bribiesca, 427 P.3d 987 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “In response, Bribiesca sent a letter to Aspen charging the 30-day notice to vacate was in retaliation for her complaints to the city inspectors, violating K.S.A. 58-2572. Bribiesca had not entered into a lease renewal before she received the notice to vacate, although she had…”
Midwest Props., L.C. v. Harvey, 934 P.2d 154 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “58-25,125 parallels K.S.A. 58-2572 of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, K.”
Adam v. Andmark White Lakes Apts., LLC (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 58-2572. First, Plaintiff complained to the housing authority prior to the change in ownership and Plaintiff alleges no facts that he made any additional complaints after the change in ownership.”
Edwards v. Klinedinst (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 2× “to repair a faulty air conditioner, and retaliatory eviction in violation of K.S.A. § 58-2572(a) and (b). Doc. 9-1 at 19–20.”
Washburn South Apts. v. Hession (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “58-2553 and second, that Washburn South's attempt to evict Hession was in retaliation for Hession reporting code violations to the City of Topeka—a violation of K.S.A. 58-2572. About two months later, the apartment complex filed an answer denying Hession's allegations.”
K.S.A. § 58-2572(a): 3 cases
Edwards v. Klinedinst (D. Kan. 2024). “to repair a faulty air conditioner, and retaliatory eviction in violation of K.S.A. § 58-2572(a) and (b). Doc. 9-1 at 19–20.”
Case & Assocs. Props. Inc. v. Bribiesca, 427 P.3d 987 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “In response, Bribiesca sent a letter to Aspen charging the 30-day notice to vacate was in retaliation for her complaints to the city inspectors, violating K.S.A. 58-2572. Bribiesca had not entered into a lease renewal before she received the notice to vacate, although she had…”
Washburn South Apts. v. Hession (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “58-2553 and second, that Washburn South's attempt to evict Hession was in retaliation for Hession reporting code violations to the City of Topeka—a violation of K.S.A. 58-2572. About two months later, the apartment complex filed an answer denying Hession's allegations.”
K.S.A. § 58-2572(b): 1 case
Case & Assocs. Props. Inc. v. Bribiesca, 427 P.3d 987 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “In response, Bribiesca sent a letter to Aspen charging the 30-day notice to vacate was in retaliation for her complaints to the city inspectors, violating K.S.A. 58-2572. Bribiesca had not entered into a lease renewal before she received the notice to vacate, although she had…”
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.