60-1905.
Apportionment of recovery.
The net amount recovered in any such action, after the allowance by the judge of costs and reasonable attorneys fees to the attorneys for the plaintiffs, in accordance with the services performed by each if there be more than one, shall be apportioned by the judge upon a hearing, with reasonable notice to all of the known heirs having an interest therein, such notice to be given in such manner as the judge shall direct. The apportionment shall be in proportion to the loss sustained by each of the heirs, and all heirs known to have sustained a loss shall share in such apportionment regardless of whether they joined or intervened in the action; but in the absence of fraud, no person who failed to join or intervene in the action may claim any error in such apportionment after the order shall have been entered and the funds distributed pursuant thereto.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1905; January 1, 1964.
Notes of Decisions
Turman v. Ameritruck Refrigerated Transp., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Kan. 2000).
· cites it 19× “The language of K.S.A. § 60-1905 contemplates awarding a fee out of the gross settlement proceeds for the services performed to create the fund.”
Johnson v. McArthur, 596 P.2d 148 (Kan. 1979).
· cites it 6× “" K.S.A. 60-1905. Apportionment of recovery.”
Baugh v. Baugh Ex Rel. Smith, 973 P.2d 202 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “Appellants also ignore the fact that the legislature has not changed the rule under K.S.A. 60-1905 that recovery in a *875 wrongful death case is divided “in proportion to the loss sustained by each of the heirs.”
Newton v. Amhof Trucking, Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (D. Kan. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 provides that, before apportioning wrongful death proceeds, the court may deduct “costs and reasonable attorney fees to the attorneys for the plaintiffs, in accordance with the services performed by each if there be more than one.”
Griffith Ex Rel. Griffith v. Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr., 842 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Kan. 1994).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-1905, which Mount Carmel contends mandates the division of damages between the heirs by the judge, does not, in the court’s opinion, require the court to give the jury a vague, generalized verdict form devoid of any specifics as to what kinds of damages may be awarded…”
Shelton v. DeWitte, 26 P.3d 650 (Kan. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 60-1905. And, even after funds have been distributed, a person who can show that he or she has been defrauded of a share in a recovery may reopen the matter.”
Frost v. Hardin, 571 P.2d 11 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977).
“The apportionment shall be in proportion to the loss sustained by each of the heirs, and all heirs known to have sustained a loss shall share in such apportionment regardless of whether they joined or intervened in the action.”
Tank v. Chronister, 951 F. Supp. 182 (D. Kan. 1997).
· cites it 2× “…in a separate proceeding after reasonable notice is given to all known heirs having an interest in the recovery. K.S.A. § 60-1905.”
Gray v. Midwest Materials by Mueller, Inc. (D. Kan. 2023).
· cites it 16× “They requested that the court approve the agreed upon attorneys’ fees and case expenses to their attorneys and apportion the recovery, as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1905 . 12. At the September 20, 2023, settlement apportionment hearing, the parties asked the court to…”
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.