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

K.S.A. § 60-4115 (2026)

Substituted assets and supplemental remedies

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

60-4115. Substituted assets and supplemental remedies. (a) The court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of an owner or in personam defendant, up to the value of that owner's or defendant's property found by the court to be subject to forfeiture under this act, if any of the owner's or defendant's forfeitable property:

(1) Cannot be located;

(2) has been transferred or conveyed to, sold to, or deposited with a third party;

(3) is beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(4) has been substantially diminished in value while not in the actual physical custody of the court, the seizing agency, the plaintiff's attorney, or their designee;

(5) has been commingled with other property that cannot be divided without difficulty;

(6) is subject to any interest of another person which interest is exempt from forfeiture under this act; or

(7) is exempt from forfeiture due to a constitutional or statutory provision.

(b) In addition to any other remedy provided for by law, if a forfeiture lien or notice of pending forfeiture has been filed and notice given pursuant to K.S.A. 60-4109, or if a complaint alleging conduct giving rise to forfeiture has been filed and notice given pursuant to such K.S.A. 60-4109 or other applicable rule of civil procedure, the plaintiff's attorney may institute an action in the district court against any person with notice or actual knowledge who destroys, conveys, alienates, encumbers, further encumbers, disposes of, purchases, receives, removes from the jurisdiction of the court, conceals, or otherwise renders unavailable for forfeiture property alleged to be subject to forfeiture in the forfeiture lien, notice of pending forfeiture, or complaint. In such case, the court shall enter a final judgment in an amount equal to the value of the lien not to exceed the fair market value of the property, or, if the property is alleged to be subject to forfeiture, in an amount equal to the fair market value of the property, together with reasonable investigative expenses and attorney fees. If a civil proceeding under this act is pending in court, the action shall be heard by such court.

History: L. 1994, ch. 339, § 15; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1998–2009 · leading case: In re Najawicz, 52 V.I. 311 (2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Najawicz, 52 V.I. 311 (2009). “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-4115 (a) (Westlaw 2009) (“The court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of an owner or in personam defendant .”
Rural Water Dist. 2 v. City of Louisburg, 207 P.3d 1055 (Kan. 2009). “for an injunction to enforce compliance with the act or rules and regulations”); K.S.A. 60-4115 (“the plaintiff s attorney may institute an action in the district court against any person”); K.”
State ex rel. Riley Cnty. Police Dep't v. $1,489.00 U.S. Currency, 59 P.3d 1045 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “*58 On the other hand, K.S.A. 60-4115 has nothing to say about when and how a rebuttable presumption of forfeiture eligibility arises as to a particular item of property.”
United States v. Chandler, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 1998). · cites it 28× “K.S.A. § 60-4115. The proceedings herein were always considered to be in rem.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4115(A)(6) — 1 case
United States v. Chandler, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 1998). “K.S.A. § 60-4115. The proceedings herein were always considered to be in rem.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4115(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Riley Cnty. Police Dep't v. $1,489.00 U.S. Currency, 59 P.3d 1045 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “*58 On the other hand, K.S.A. 60-4115 has nothing to say about when and how a rebuttable presumption of forfeiture eligibility arises as to a particular item of property.”
United States v. Chandler, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 1998). “K.S.A. § 60-4115. The proceedings herein were always considered to be in rem.”
— K.S.A. § 60-4115(a)(7) — 1 case
State ex rel. Riley Cnty. Police Dep't v. $1,489.00 U.S. Currency, 59 P.3d 1045 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “*58 On the other hand, K.S.A. 60-4115 has nothing to say about when and how a rebuttable presumption of forfeiture eligibility arises as to a particular item of property.”
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.