K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-2413 (2026)

Contribution between joint obligors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-2413. Contribution between joint obligors. (a) Generally. Persons jointly liable to another in contract are entitled to contribution among themselves as heretofore recognized by principles of equity. Such right of contribution may be asserted in separate actions or by way of cross-claim, interpleader, or intervention under the provisions of article 2.

(b) Judgment debtors. A right of contribution or indemnity among judgment debtors, arising out of the payment of the judgment by one or more of them, may be enforced by execution against the property of the judgment debtor from whom contribution or indemnity is sought.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-2413; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1967–2007 · leading case: Ellis v. Union Pac. R.R., 643 P.2d 158 (Kan. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ellis v. Union Pac. R.R., 643 P.2d 158 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 4× “436 ; K.S.A. 60-2413( b ). Thus, a *186 defendant could not settle then seek contribution to distribute the loss among tortfeasors.”
McKinney, Adm'r v. Miller, 464 P.2d 276 (Kan. 1970). · cites it 10× “The answer lies in the interpretation to be given K.S.A. 60-2413, which provides: " Contribution between joint obligors.”
Brown v. Keill, 580 P.2d 867 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 2× “However, K.S.A. 60-2413(b) provides: “A right of contribution or indemnity among judgment debtors, arising out of the payment of the judgment by one or more of them, may be enforced by *198 execution against the property of the judgment debtor from whom contribution or indemnity…”
Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 927 P.2d 466 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 4× “Thus, contribution in Kansas is governed by statute, K.S.A. 60-2413, and the legislature is free to alter the effects of such statute by a subsequent enactment.”
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union, 451 U.S. 77 (1981). “…1979); Ga. Code § 105-2012 (1978); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 663-11 to 663-17 (1976); Idaho Code §§ 6-803 to 6-806 (1979) ; Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-2413 (1976); Ky. Rev. Stat. §§412.010-412.060 (1972); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 50, §§ 16-24 (1979); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 231B, §§ 1-4 (West…”
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Sulco, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 820 (D. Kan. 1996). · cites it 4× “Kansas provides for a right of contribution pursuant to Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-2413 which provides: (a) Generally.”
Mathis v. TG & Y, 751 P.2d 136 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 2× “Prior to the enactment of 60-258a, when a plaintiff obtained a judgment against two or more tortfeasors, contribution between the tortfeasors was authorized by K.S.A. 60-2413(b). A plaintiff could choose his defendant and a defendant had no right to bring other tortfeasors into…”
Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Superior Boiler Works, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Finding that the defendants alleged that they incurred losses in excess of what they would otherwise owe under the agreements between the parties, the court held that the allegation satisfied the requirement in Cipra that contribution requires a mature claim and allowed the…”
Gray v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 603 F. Supp. 872 (D. Kan. 1985). · cites it 2× “The named defendants’ reliance on K.S.A. 60-2413(b) is misplaced. That “limited statutory exception” to “the common law rule of no contribution between joint tortfeasors,” Ellis v.”
Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corp. v. Pal Air Int'l, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1408 (D. Kan. 1996). · cites it 3× “Contribution Finally, Porter and Samoa Aviation contend the claim for contribution under K.S.A. 60-2413(a) should be dismissed since the cause of action under the statute only arises when the claimant pays more than his share.”
Chavez v. Markham, 889 P.2d 122 (Kan. 1995). “60-258a, when a plaintiff obtained a judgment against two or more tortfeasors, contribution between the judgment debtors was authorized by K.S.A. 60-2413(b). A plaintiff could choose a defendant, and a defendant had no right to bring other tortfeasors into the plaintiff’s action.”
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. v. Huff, 704 P.2d 372 (Kan. 1985). “2d 276 (1970), it was held, when a joint judgment is entered in an action founded upon tort, contribution between the joint judgment debtors is authorized by K.S.A. 60-2413(b). In McKinney, Administrator v.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-2413(a) — 5 cases
Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Superior Boiler Works, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Kan. 2007). “” Finding that the defendants alleged that they incurred losses in excess of what they would otherwise owe under the agreements between the parties, the court held that the allegation satisfied the requirement in Cipra that contribution requires a mature claim and allowed the…”
Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corp. v. Pal Air Int'l, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1408 (D. Kan. 1996). “Contribution Finally, Porter and Samoa Aviation contend the claim for contribution under K.S.A. 60-2413(a) should be dismissed since the cause of action under the statute only arises when the claimant pays more than his share.”
Wandrey v. McCarthy, 804 F. Supp. 1384 (D. Kan. 1992).
Litwin v. Barrier, 626 P.2d 1232 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Frazier, 637 F. Supp. 77 (D. Kan. 1986).
— K.S.A. § 60-2413(b) — 9 cases
Brown v. Keill, 580 P.2d 867 (Kan. 1978). “However, K.S.A. 60-2413(b) provides: “A right of contribution or indemnity among judgment debtors, arising out of the payment of the judgment by one or more of them, may be enforced by *198 execution against the property of the judgment debtor from whom contribution or indemnity…”
Ellis v. Union Pac. R.R., 643 P.2d 158 (Kan. 1982). “436 ; K.S.A. 60-2413( b ). Thus, a *186 defendant could not settle then seek contribution to distribute the loss among tortfeasors.”
Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 927 P.2d 466 (Kan. 1996). “Thus, contribution in Kansas is governed by statute, K.S.A. 60-2413, and the legislature is free to alter the effects of such statute by a subsequent enactment.”
Mathis v. TG & Y, 751 P.2d 136 (Kan. 1988). “Prior to the enactment of 60-258a, when a plaintiff obtained a judgment against two or more tortfeasors, contribution between the tortfeasors was authorized by K.S.A. 60-2413(b). A plaintiff could choose his defendant and a defendant had no right to bring other tortfeasors into…”
Gray v. City of Kansas City, Kan., 603 F. Supp. 872 (D. Kan. 1985). “The named defendants’ reliance on K.S.A. 60-2413(b) is misplaced. That “limited statutory exception” to “the common law rule of no contribution between joint tortfeasors,” Ellis v.”
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.