Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-209 (2026)

Pleading special matters

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-209. Pleading special matters. (a) Capacity or authority to sue; legal existence. (1) In general. A pleading need not allege:

(A) A party's capacity to sue or be sued;

(B) a party's authority to sue or be sued in a representative capacity; or

(2) Raising those issues. To raise any of those issues, a party must do so by a specific denial, which must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly within the party's knowledge.

(b) Fraud or mistake; conditions of mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.

(c) Conditions precedent. In pleading conditions precedent, it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or have been performed. But when denying that a condition precedent has occurred or been performed, a party must do so with particularity.

(d) Official document or act. In pleading an official document or official act, it suffices to allege that the document was legally issued or the act legally done.

(e) Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or a board or officer, it suffices to plead the judgment or decision without showing jurisdiction to render it.

(f) Time and place. An allegation of time or place is material when testing the sufficiency of a pleading.

(g) Special damages. If an item of special damage is claimed, it must be specifically stated. If the court allows an amended petition pursuant to K.S.A. 60-3703, and amendments thereto, to include a claim for exemplary or punitive damages the amended petition must state only whether the amount sought as damages is or is not in excess of $75,000.

(h) Pleading a written instrument. A claim, defense or counterclaim founded on a written instrument may be pleaded by:

(1) Reasonably identifying the written instrument and stating its substance;

(2) reciting the contents of the written instrument in the pleading; or

(3) attaching a copy to the pleading as an exhibit.

(i) Tender of money. When a tender of money is made in a pleading, the money need not be deposited in court prior to trial, unless the court orders otherwise.

(j) Libel and slander. In an action for libel or slander, it suffices to allege generally that defamatory matter was published or spoken concerning the plaintiff, and if that allegation is not denied in the answer, it need not be proved at trial. The defendant's answer may allege both the truth of the matter charged as defamatory and any mitigating circumstances that reduce the amount of damages. Whether the defendant proves justification, the defendant may introduce evidence of any mitigating circumstances.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-209; L. 1976, ch. 252, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 209, § 5; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 5; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 76; L. 2011, ch. 48, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 86 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Vorhees v. Baltazar, 153 P.3d 1227 (Kan. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vorhees v. Baltazar, 153 P.3d 1227 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 12× “" 4 Gard and Casad, Kansas Code of Civil Procedure Annotated § 60-209, p. 48 (4th ed.2003). For compliance with the statute, Vorhees would only have been required to amend his petition to identify the administrator by name.”

Fusaro v. First Fam. Mortg. Corp., 897 P.2d 123 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 6× “The initial question for the trial court when considering all the evidence is whether “plaintiff has established that there is a probability [considering that the burden on plaintiff is proof by clear and convincing evidence] that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant…”

Nal II, Ltd. v. Tonkin, 705 F. Supp. 522 (D. Kan. 1989). · cites it 6× “The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the…”

Wanjiku v. Johnson Cnty., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (D. Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “9(c) (explaining that a pleading must “allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or been performed”); see also K.S.A. § 60-209(c) (Kansas pleading statute stating the same).”

Nelson v. Nelson, 205 P.3d 715 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 3× “First, the parties did not acknowledge the lack of Kansas authority or the split in the cases in other jurisdictions.”

Miller v. Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan & Glassman, 978 P.2d 922 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 4× “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”

Hemphill v. Shore, 289 P.3d 1173 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 60-209(b). But it observed that this court had not determined whether this heightened pleading standard applied to constructive fraud, an issue on which there is a split of authority.”

Hernandez v. Pistotnik, 472 P.3d 110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-209(b), when pleading fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity: "In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.”

Vondracek v. Mid-State Co-Op, Inc., 79 P.3d 197 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-209(b). However, the appellate court made no ruling on that issue since the district court had not addressed the issue in initially granting summary judgment.”

Citizens State Bank v. Gilmore, 603 P.2d 605 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 2× “The Plaintiff’s petition fails to state with particularity the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged fraud as required by K.S.A. 60-209(b) nor does it allege facts sufficient to constitute a conspiracy and resulting damage.”

Dugan v. First Nat'l Bank in Wichita, 606 P.2d 1009 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “The trial court found "no clear and convincing evidence" of fraud.”

Dawson v. Prager, 76 P.3d 1036 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 2× “On appeal, Dawson contends that her denial of a contract is sufficient because Menninger failed either to plead the existence of a contract or to attach the contract to its counterclaim as required by K.S.A. 60-209(h). It appears that Menninger satisfied the statutory…”

Show all 86 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 60-209(a) — 7 cases

Vorhees v. Baltazar, 153 P.3d 1227 (Kan. 2007). “" 4 Gard and Casad, Kansas Code of Civil Procedure Annotated § 60-209, p. 48 (4th ed.2003). For compliance with the statute, Vorhees would only have been required to amend his petition to identify the administrator by name.”

Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 106 P.3d 483 (Kan. 2005).

Phillips v. JCM Dev. Corp., 666 P.2d 876 (Utah 1983).

IAS Partners, Ltd. v. Chambers, 213 P.3d 751 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).

In Re Metcalf Assocs.-2000, LLC, 213 P.3d 751 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(a)(2) — 1 case

Douglas Landscape & Design, L.L.C. v. Miles, 355 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(a)(l) — 1 case

Douglas Landscape & Design, L.L.C. v. Miles, 355 P.3d 700 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(b) — 25 cases

Miller v. Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan & Glassman, 978 P.2d 922 (Kan. 1999). “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.”

Nelson v. Nelson, 205 P.3d 715 (Kan. 2009). “First, the parties did not acknowledge the lack of Kansas authority or the split in the cases in other jurisdictions.”

Hernandez v. Pistotnik, 472 P.3d 110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-209(b), when pleading fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity: "In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.”

Vondracek v. Mid-State Co-Op, Inc., 79 P.3d 197 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “See K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-209(b). However, the appellate court made no ruling on that issue since the district court had not addressed the issue in initially granting summary judgment.”

Hemphill v. Shore, 289 P.3d 1173 (Kan. 2012). “See K.S.A. 60-209(b). But it observed that this court had not determined whether this heightened pleading standard applied to constructive fraud, an issue on which there is a split of authority.”

— K.S.A. § 60-209(c) — 7 cases

Wanjiku v. Johnson Cnty., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (D. Kan. 2016). “9(c) (explaining that a pleading must “allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or been performed”); see also K.S.A. § 60-209(c) (Kansas pleading statute stating the same).”

Tucking v. Bd. of Jefferson Cnty. Comm'rs., 796 P.2d 1055 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).

Bell v. Kansas City, Kansas, Hous. Auth., 992 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1999).

Smith v. Stewart, 667 P.2d 358 (Kan. 1983).

Sage v. Williams, 933 P.2d 775 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(e) — 1 case

Miller v. Brungardt, 904 F. Supp. 1215 (D. Kan. 1995).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(f) — 1 case

Teachout v. Ryders Sys. Inc (D. Kan. 2024).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(fe) — 1 case

Citizens State Bank v. Gilmore, 603 P.2d 605 (Kan. 1979). “The Plaintiff’s petition fails to state with particularity the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged fraud as required by K.S.A. 60-209(b) nor does it allege facts sufficient to constitute a conspiracy and resulting damage.”

— K.S.A. § 60-209(g) — 4 cases

Nal II, Ltd. v. Tonkin, 705 F. Supp. 522 (D. Kan. 1989). “The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the…”

Fusaro v. First Fam. Mortg. Corp., 897 P.2d 123 (Kan. 1995). “The initial question for the trial court when considering all the evidence is whether “plaintiff has established that there is a probability [considering that the burden on plaintiff is proof by clear and convincing evidence] that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant…”

Osterhaus v. Schunk, 249 P.3d 888 (Kan. 2011).

Savage v. Timsah (Kan. 2026).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(h) — 10 cases

Dawson v. Prager, 76 P.3d 1036 (Kan. 2003). “On appeal, Dawson contends that her denial of a contract is sufficient because Menninger failed either to plead the existence of a contract or to attach the contract to its counterclaim as required by K.S.A. 60-209(h). It appears that Menninger satisfied the statutory…”

In re the Est. of Wolf, 112 P.3d 94 (Kan. 2005).

In the Interest of C.H.W., 988 P.2d 276 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999).

Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 551 P.3d 142 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).

— K.S.A. § 60-209(j) — 2 cases

Knight v. Neodesha Police Dep't, 620 P.2d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).

Creative Plan. v. Greco (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).

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.