K.S.A. » Chapter 60

K.S.A. § 60-2403

Judgment, when dormant; release of record; child support judgments after July 1, 2007, never dormant; court costs, fees, fines and restitution judgments after July 1, 2015, never dormant

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

60-2403. Judgment, when dormant; release of record; child support judgments after July 1, 2007, never dormant; court costs, fees, fines and restitution judgments after July 1, 2015, never dormant. (a) (1) Except as provided in subsection (b), if a renewal affidavit is not filed or if execution, including any garnishment proceeding, support enforcement proceeding or proceeding in aid of execution, is not issued, within five years from the date of the entry of any judgment in any court of record in this state, including judgments in favor of the state or any municipality in the state, or within five years from the date of any order reviving the judgment or, if five years have intervened between the date of the last renewal affidavit filed or execution proceedings undertaken on the judgment and the time of filing another renewal affidavit or undertaking execution proceedings on it, the judgment, including court costs and fees therein shall become dormant, and shall cease to operate as a lien on the real estate of the judgment debtor. When a judgment becomes and remains dormant for a period of two years, it shall be the duty of the judge to release the judgment of record when requested to do so. Undisputed payments made prior to a request for a release of judgment are voluntary and not subject to refund or recoupment.

(2) A "renewal affidavit" is a statement under oath, signed by the judgment creditor or the judgment creditor's attorney, filed in the proceedings in which the judgment was entered and stating the remaining balance due and unpaid on the judgment.

(3) A "support enforcement proceeding" means any civil proceeding to enforce any judgment for payment of child support or maintenance and includes, but is not limited to, any income withholding proceeding under the income withholding act, K.S.A. 23-3101 et seq., and amendments thereto, any contempt proceeding and any civil proceeding under the uniform interstate family support act, K.S.A. 23-36,101 et seq., and amendments thereto.

(b) Except for those judgments which have become void as of July 1, 2007, no judgment for the support of a child shall be or become dormant for any purpose except as provided in this subsection. Except for those judgments which have become void as of July 1, 2015, no judgment for court costs, fees, fines or restitution shall be or become dormant for any purpose except as provided in this subsection. If a judgment would have become dormant under the conditions set forth in subsection (a), the judgment shall cease to operate as a lien on the real estate of the judgment debtor as of the date the judgment would have become dormant, but the judgment shall not be released of record pursuant to subsection (a).

(c) The time within which action must be taken to prevent a judgment from becoming dormant does not run during any period in which the enforcement of the judgment by legal process is stayed or prohibited.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-2403; L. 1973, ch. 238, § 1; L. 1984, ch. 147, § 14; L. 1985, ch. 115, § 54; L. 1988, ch. 218, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 207, § 2; L. 1992, ch. 103, § 1; L. 1995, ch. 257, § 8; L. 2007, ch. 174, § 6; L. 2012, ch. 162, § 80; L. 2015, ch. 53, § 4; L. 2022, ch. 31, § 5; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp. (2011) kan · cites it 28× “However, the parties also raise jurisdictional issues, one of which is NPIC’s contention that the underlying judgments against Americold were extinguished pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2403, thus depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with this…”
Bank IV Wichita, National Ass'n v. Plein (1992) kan · cites it 10× “Even if William’s amended answer relates back to his original answer, the amended answer is not an execution, garnishment, or proceeding in aid of execution (the requirements of K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-2403[a] to keep the judgment alive).”
State v. Dwyer (2019) kanctapp · cites it 16× “The district court also explained the legislative history of K.S.A. 60-2403. Prior to 2015, subsection (d) provided that an individual has 10 years to collect a restitution judgment before it becomes dormant.”
Alexander Construction Co. v. Weaver (1979) kanctapp · cites it 12× “Defendant relied on the argument that foreign judgments are to be governed by the laws of the forum state (Kansas), and therefore under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-2403 and 60-2404, this was a dormant judgment that could not be enforced in Kansas.”
In Re the Marriage of Larimore (2015) kanctapp · cites it 13× “” Based on K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403 and Bank IV Wichita v.”
In re Marriage of Doud and Modrcin (2020) kanctapp · cites it 8× “A dormant judgment can be revived if, within two years, a party strictly complies with the procedures set forth in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2403 and K.S.A. 60-2404.”
State v. Douglas (2012) kanctapp · cites it 9× “His basic assertion is that because the State waited so long (19 years) to try and collect the court costs, it should be barred from now doing so because of the passage of time.”
Cyr v. Cyr (1991) kan · cites it 6× “60-2401 or garnishment or income withholding proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-2403 but were proceedings in aid of execution pursuant to 60-2403, *97 thereby keeping alive the judgments for past due support.”
Gardner v. Gardner (1996) kanctapp · cites it 10× “On October 25, 1994, SRS filed a second motion for revivor of all judgments from July 1, 1981, through September 30, 1994.”
In Re the Marriage of Jones (1996) kanctapp · cites it 7× “At the hearing on the motion for revivor in 1994, the court ruled that Mary was guilty of laches and that it would be inequitable and inappropriate for her to recover back payments dating back to June 25, 1982. It also denied William’s motions to terminate alimony.”
Summitt v. Summitt (2003) kanctapp · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-2403(a)(3). Generally, a judgment that remains dormant for 2 years is extinguished.”
Martin v. Phillips (2015) kanctapp · cites it 5× “Under the Kansas dormancy statute, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403, child-support judgments not void as of July 1, 2007, never become dormant.”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(a) — 19 cases
Bank IV Wichita, National Ass'n v. Plein (1992) kan “Even if William’s amended answer relates back to his original answer, the amended answer is not an execution, garnishment, or proceeding in aid of execution (the requirements of K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-2403[a] to keep the judgment alive).”
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp. (2011) kan “However, the parties also raise jurisdictional issues, one of which is NPIC’s contention that the underlying judgments against Americold were extinguished pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2403, thus depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with this…”
State v. Douglas (2012) kanctapp “His basic assertion is that because the State waited so long (19 years) to try and collect the court costs, it should be barred from now doing so because of the passage of time.”
Cyr v. Cyr (1991) kan “60-2401 or garnishment or income withholding proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 60-2403 but were proceedings in aid of execution pursuant to 60-2403, *97 thereby keeping alive the judgments for past due support.”
Kansas Department of Labor v. Singleton (In re Singleton) (2016) ksb
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(a)(1) — 15 cases
In re Marriage of Doud and Modrcin (2020) kanctapp “A dormant judgment can be revived if, within two years, a party strictly complies with the procedures set forth in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2403 and K.S.A. 60-2404.”
Summitt v. Summitt (2003) kanctapp “K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-2403(a)(3). Generally, a judgment that remains dormant for 2 years is extinguished.”
State v. Morrison (2000) kanctapp
State Ex Rel. Thorne v. Cleland (2009) kanctapp
In re Marriage of Strom (2019) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(a)(3) — 2 cases
Summitt v. Summitt (2003) kanctapp “K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-2403(a)(3). Generally, a judgment that remains dormant for 2 years is extinguished.”
State Ex Rel. Thorne v. Cleland (2009) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(a)(l) — 10 cases
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp. (2011) kan “However, the parties also raise jurisdictional issues, one of which is NPIC’s contention that the underlying judgments against Americold were extinguished pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2403, thus depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with this…”
In Re the Marriage of Larimore (2015) kanctapp “” Based on K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403 and Bank IV Wichita v.”
State v. Dwyer (2019) kanctapp “The district court also explained the legislative history of K.S.A. 60-2403. Prior to 2015, subsection (d) provided that an individual has 10 years to collect a restitution judgment before it becomes dormant.”
Hale v. Hale (2005) kanctapp
Summitt v. Summitt (2003) kanctapp “K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-2403(a)(3). Generally, a judgment that remains dormant for 2 years is extinguished.”
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(b) — 11 cases
State v. Dwyer (2019) kanctapp “The district court also explained the legislative history of K.S.A. 60-2403. Prior to 2015, subsection (d) provided that an individual has 10 years to collect a restitution judgment before it becomes dormant.”
State v. Arnett (2021) kan
State v. Robison (2021) kan
Martin v. Phillips (2015) kanctapp “Under the Kansas dormancy statute, K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403, child-support judgments not void as of July 1, 2007, never become dormant.”
In Re the Marriage of Jones (1996) kanctapp “At the hearing on the motion for revivor in 1994, the court ruled that Mary was guilty of laches and that it would be inequitable and inappropriate for her to recover back payments dating back to June 25, 1982. It also denied William’s motions to terminate alimony.”
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(b)(2) — 1 case
Gardner v. Gardner (1996) kanctapp “On October 25, 1994, SRS filed a second motion for revivor of all judgments from July 1, 1981, through September 30, 1994.”
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(b)(l) — 3 cases
Summitt v. Summitt (2003) kanctapp “K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-2403(a)(3). Generally, a judgment that remains dormant for 2 years is extinguished.”
Gardner v. Gardner (1996) kanctapp “On October 25, 1994, SRS filed a second motion for revivor of all judgments from July 1, 1981, through September 30, 1994.”
In Re the Marriage of Williams (1995) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(c) — 8 cases
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp. (2011) kan “However, the parties also raise jurisdictional issues, one of which is NPIC’s contention that the underlying judgments against Americold were extinguished pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2403, thus depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with this…”
In Re the Marriage of Larimore (2015) kanctapp “” Based on K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-2403 and Bank IV Wichita v.”
In re Marriage of Doud and Modrcin (2020) kanctapp “A dormant judgment can be revived if, within two years, a party strictly complies with the procedures set forth in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-2403 and K.S.A. 60-2404.”
In re Marriage of Strom (2019) kanctapp
In re Marriage of Bates (2026) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-2403(d) — 8 cases
State v. Dwyer (2019) kanctapp “The district court also explained the legislative history of K.S.A. 60-2403. Prior to 2015, subsection (d) provided that an individual has 10 years to collect a restitution judgment before it becomes dormant.”
State v. Douglas (2012) kanctapp “His basic assertion is that because the State waited so long (19 years) to try and collect the court costs, it should be barred from now doing so because of the passage of time.”
State v. Morrison (2000) kanctapp
State v. Eubanks (2022) kan
State v. Robards (2003) kanctapp
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.