K.S.A. § 60-222

Interpleader

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

60-222. Interpleader. (a) Grounds. (1) By a plaintiff. Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead. Joinder for interpleader is proper even though:

(A) The claims of the several claimants, or the titles on which their claims depend, lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical; or

(B) the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.

(2) By a defendant. A defendant exposed to similar liability may seek interpleader through a crossclaim or counterclaim.

(b) Disclaiming interpleader. (1) A party's answer may plead that:

(A) Another person, without collusion with the party, has a claim or has made a claim to money or property in the party's possession; and

(B) the party is ready to pay or dispose of the money or property as the court orders.

(2) The court may issue an order for the safekeeping, including the payment or deposit in court or the delivery to a custodian, of the money or property. The court may issue an order requiring the person to appear at a specific time and assert or relinquish a claim against the money or property. A copy of the order must be served on the person in the manner provided for service of summons in article 3 of chapter 60 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated.

(3) If the person fails to appear at the specified time, the court may bar any claim by the person to the money or property. If the person appears and asserts a claim against the money or property, the court must discharge the party from all liability with respect to the money or property upon the party's deposit or delivery of the money or property as ordered by the court. The court must realign the remaining parties as their interests appear.

(c) Application. The provisions of this section supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in K.S.A. 60-220, and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-222; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 89; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Club Exchange Corporation v. Searing

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Club Exchange Corporation v. Searing (1977) kan · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 60-222 (a) provides in applicable part that: “Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability.”

Johnson County Bank v. Ross (2000) kanctapp · cites it 2× “This factual scenario does not fit within K.S.A. 60-222. Since interpleader was not appropriate, we need not consider the rest of the Bank’s arguments on appeal.”

Mitchelson v. Travelers Insurance (1981) kan · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-222, our interpleader statute, provides for a court order "for the safekeeping, or for the payment or deposit in court, .”

Excel Corp. v. Jimenez (2000) kan · cites it 2× “3d 1124 (1996), cited by majority, is not an action to recover money damages for a negligent or fraudulent act; it is an interpleader action in the federal court similar to K.S.A. 60-222. Persons having claims against the plaintiff/insurer were joined as defendants.”

Farmers State Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Yates Center (1981) kan “Each bank made claim based upon one or two specific temporary notes which it held in its portfolio; the banks did not make claims adverse to each other.”

Edmiston v. First Nat'l Bank of Holcomb (1987) kan “Under K.S.A. 60-222 (a), the stakeholder need not be neutral.”

Woodard v. Hendrix (2022) kanctapp “60-252(a)(5), "negative" findings of fact and "positive" findings of 23 fact should be reviewed on appeal using the same standard.”

— K.S.A. § 60-222(a) — 1 case

Johnson County Bank v. Ross (2000) kanctapp “This factual scenario does not fit within K.S.A. 60-222. Since interpleader was not appropriate, we need not consider the rest of the Bank’s arguments on appeal.”

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.