60-2002.
Taxation of costs.
(a)
As of course.
Unless otherwise provided by statute, or by order of the judge, the costs shall be allowed to the party in whose favor judgment is rendered. The court shall have the discretion to order that the alternative dispute resolution fees be, in whole or in part, paid by or from any combination of any party or parties, from any fund authorized to pay such fees, or from the proceeds of any settlement or judgment.
(b)
Offer of judgment.
At any time more than 21 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against such party for the money or property or to the effect specified in such party's offer, with costs then accrued. If within 14 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time prior to the commencement of proceedings to determine the amount or extent of liability.
(c)
Duty of clerk.
The clerk of the court shall tax the costs and, upon request, shall furnish a cost statement to counsel of record for the party ordered by the court to pay costs. The taxation of the costs by the clerk shall be subject to review by the judge on timely motion by any interested party.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-2002; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1974, ch. 168, § 4; L. 1991, ch. 173, § 2; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 178; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Telegram Publ'g Co. v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 69 P.3d 578 (Kan. 2003).
· cites it 6× “45-222(c), should costs have been awarded under K.S.A. 60-2002? No. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.”
Snodgrass v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 789 P.2d 211 (Kan. 1990).
· cites it 6× “K.S.A. 60-2002 and 60-2003 indicate the intent of the legislature to award attorney fees as costs in the action.”
Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 317 P.3d 70 (Kan. 2014).
· cites it 2× “60-2001(d) specifically enumerates “attorney fees” as other fees, and under K.S.A. 60-2002(a), “costs shall be allowed to the party in whose favor judgment is rendered” unless a statute or a judge’s order provides otherwise.”
Hawkins v. Dennis, 905 P.2d 678 (Kan. 1995).
· cites it 3× “38 for costs “recognized by K.S.A. 60-2002.” Material items which are allowable as costs by K.”
Wendt v. Univ. of Kansas Med. Ctr., 59 P.3d 325 (Kan. 2002).
· cites it 2× “60-2003(5) provides that “Reporters or stenographic charges for the taking of depositions used as evidence” may be included in the taxation of costs.”
Nungesser v. Bryant, 153 P.3d 1277 (Kan. 2007).
“He also recognized the consent judgment in favor of Nungesser and against Bryant “in the reasonable amount of $2,000,000, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2002(b), with the express consent of EMCASCO.”
Divine v. Groshong, 679 P.2d 700 (Kan. 1984).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-2002 first provides for the service of an offer to allow judgment to be taken.”
Smith v. McKune, 76 P.3d 1060 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Nev *988 ertheless, the district court at the conclusion of the case could tax the docket fee against any one or more litigants under K.S.A. 60-2002. Davis v. Davis, 5 Kan. App.”
Baugh v. Baugh Ex Rel. Smith, 973 P.2d 202 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, K.S.A. 60-2002 provides that costs shall be allowed to the party in whose favor judgment is rendered.”
Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 172 P.3d 1201 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-2002 does not provide for the payment of all of the expenses incurred by the opposing party after the making of the offer.”
Laing v. Shanberg, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (D. Kan. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Kansas courts have the power to sanction parties for filing specious lawsuits with an award of attorney fees pursuant to K.”
Rood v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 755 P.2d 502 (Kan. 1988).
· cites it 2× “"(c) The additional costs provided for in this section may be assessed only upon motion filed by the aggrieved party prior to taxation of costs by the clerk of the court under subsection (c) of K.S.A. 60-2002. The party against whom the additional costs are to be assessed shall…”
— K.S.A. § 60-2002(a) — 11 cases
Wendt v. Univ. of Kansas Med. Ctr., 59 P.3d 325 (Kan. 2002).
“60-2003(5) provides that “Reporters or stenographic charges for the taking of depositions used as evidence” may be included in the taxation of costs.”
Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 317 P.3d 70 (Kan. 2014).
“60-2001(d) specifically enumerates “attorney fees” as other fees, and under K.S.A. 60-2002(a), “costs shall be allowed to the party in whose favor judgment is rendered” unless a statute or a judge’s order provides otherwise.”
Telegram Publ'g Co. v. Kansas Dep't of Transp., 69 P.3d 578 (Kan. 2003).
“45-222(c), should costs have been awarded under K.S.A. 60-2002? No. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.”
— K.S.A. § 60-2002(b) — 8 cases
Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 317 P.3d 70 (Kan. 2014).
“60-2001(d) specifically enumerates “attorney fees” as other fees, and under K.S.A. 60-2002(a), “costs shall be allowed to the party in whose favor judgment is rendered” unless a statute or a judge’s order provides otherwise.”
Nungesser v. Bryant, 153 P.3d 1277 (Kan. 2007).
“He also recognized the consent judgment in favor of Nungesser and against Bryant “in the reasonable amount of $2,000,000, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2002(b), with the express consent of EMCASCO.”
Higgins v. Abilene Mach., Inc., 172 P.3d 1201 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
“K.S.A. 60-2002 does not provide for the payment of all of the expenses incurred by the opposing party after the making of the offer.”
— K.S.A. § 60-2002(c) — 1 case
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.