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

K.S.A. § 60-503 (2026)

Adverse possession

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

60-503. Adverse possession. No action shall be maintained against any person for the recovery of real property who has been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of such real property, either under a claim knowingly adverse or under a belief of ownership, for a period of fifteen (15) years. This section shall not apply to any action commenced within one (1) year after the effective date of this act.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-503; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1926–2024 · leading case: Crone v. Nuss, 263 P.3d 809 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crone v. Nuss, 263 P.3d 809 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 11× “” K.S.A. 60-503. Under the statute, the trespasser may be under a good-faith belief that he or she actually owns the property or may be exerting a claim to the property that is knowingly adverse to the owner.”
Armstrong v. Cities Serv. Gas Co., 502 P.2d 672 (Kan. 1972). · cites it 17× “(K.S.A. 60-503; and K.S.A. 58-2523) "2. K.”
Wright v. Sourk, 258 P.3d 981 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “See K.S.A. 60-503; Wallace v. Magie, 214 Kan.”
Chesbro v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 186 P.3d 829 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “The uncontroverted evidence in this case established that the *956 County had acquired the subject property by adverse possession through a belief of ownership for the requisite 15-year period under K.S.A. 60-503. Because Chesbro failed to bring forth evidence establishing a…”
Stith v. Williams, 605 P.2d 86 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 60-503 provides: "No action shall be maintained against any person for the recovery of real *36 property who has been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of such real property, either under a claim knowingly adverse or under belief of ownership, for a period of…”
Ruhland v. Elliott, 353 P.3d 1124 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 6× “However, we exercise de novo review over a district court’s interpretation of the adverse possession statute, K.S.A. 60-503. See Dillon Real Estate Co.”
Hiji v. City of Garnett, 804 P.2d 950 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 9× “In determining the applicable limitation period for inverse condemnation actions, we are confronted with several options: (1) the fifteen-year period derived from the adverse possession statute (K.S.A. 60-503); (2) the fifteen-year period for unspecified real property actions (K.”
Allingham v. Nelson, 627 P.2d 1179 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “The requisite openness, continuity, and exclusiveness existed in the plaintiffs’ predecessors to satisfy the provisions of K.S.A. 60-503 as amended.” As the trial judge points out, the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement are drawn from the law of adverse…”
Oxy U.S. Inc. v. Red Wing Oil, LLC, 442 P.3d 504 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 6× “The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Luther Term Interest Holders, finding King's claim was time barred by the statute of limitations in K.”
Buchanan v. Rediger, 975 P.2d 1235 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 60-503 provides: “No action shall be maintained against any person for the recovery of real property who has been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of such real property, either under a claim knowingly adverse or under a belief of ownership, for a period of…”
Coburn v. Sievert, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9704 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “Therefore, in stating that a belief must be honest in fact, we are not engrafting a modifier into the statute, but are simply recognizing what is inherent in the term itself.”
Renensland v. Ellenberger, 574 P.2d 217 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “The trial court found that plaintiffs’ evidence failed to establish they had been in open possession of the real property in question within the meaning of K.S.A. 60-503 and that plaintiffs had not established their possession to be under a belief of ownership.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-503(a) — 1 case
Wright v. Sourk, 258 P.3d 981 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “See K.S.A. 60-503; Wallace v. Magie, 214 Kan.”
— K.S.A. § 60-503(b) — 1 case
Wright v. Sourk, 258 P.3d 981 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “See K.S.A. 60-503; Wallace v. Magie, 214 Kan.”
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.