60-712.
Dissolution of attachment; hearing.
(a)
Motion to dissolve, how made.
In all cases where property, effects or credits shall be attached, any interested person may file a motion to dissolve the attachment, verified by affidavit, putting in issue the sufficiency of the proceedings, the defendant's or other person's claim of exemption as to any property which has been attached, or the truth of the facts alleged in the affidavit on which the attachment was issued. The court shall hold a hearing on the motion within seven days after the receipt thereof. The burden of proof shall be on the party seeking the attachment except as to any claim of exemption.
(b)
Amendments.
The judge may in the interest of justice, permit amendments to the petition or the affidavit, including the specification of additional grounds for attachment.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-712; L. 1977, ch. 202, § 6; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 160; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1981–2019 · leading case:
Nohinek v. Logsdon, 628 P.2d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
Nohinek v. Logsdon, 628 P.2d 257 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Logsdon’s motion to dissolve a writ of attachment pursuant to K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 60-712. On December 21, 1978, the Nohineks filed an action in the district court alleging fraud by Logsdon and obtained a judgment for $29,480.”
W-V Enter., Inc. v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins., 673 P.2d 1112 (Kan. 1983).
“” We then remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of conducting proceedings pertaining to the validity of the attachment order under K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-712. The district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law upholding the attachment order…”
Miller v. Clayco State Bank, 708 P.2d 997 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
“K.S.A. 60-712(a). Under the rationale of Walnut Valley , when the ownership of the garnished account is disputed, an expeditious hearing of the issue is contemplated, and there is imposed upon the party seeking to rebut the presumption of equal ownership the burden of proving…”
Mid-States Ag-Chem Co. v. Atchison Grain Co., 750 F. Supp. 465 (D. Kan. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The court further finds that because plaintiff has failed to sustain its burden of proof on the properness of attachment as required by K.S.A. 60-712, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for an order of prejudgment attachment.”
In Re Stanley Station Assocs., L.P., 139 B.R. 990 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1992).
“In addition to the filing of a petition, the applicant for an order of attachment must file an affidavit stating: (1) one or more of the grounds for attachment listed in the statute, specifying with particularity the facts in support of such grounds; (2) that plaintiff has a…”
Michael Lerner (Bankr. D. Kan. 2019).
“In a proceeding under K.S.A. 60-712 to dissolve an attachment, “[t]he burden of proof is on the party seeking the attachment except to any claim of exemption.”
— K.S.A. § 60-712(a) — 2 cases
Miller v. Clayco State Bank, 708 P.2d 997 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
“K.S.A. 60-712(a). Under the rationale of Walnut Valley , when the ownership of the garnished account is disputed, an expeditious hearing of the issue is contemplated, and there is imposed upon the party seeking to rebut the presumption of equal ownership the burden of proving…”
Mid-States Ag-Chem Co. v. Atchison Grain Co., 750 F. Supp. 465 (D. Kan. 1990).
“The court further finds that because plaintiff has failed to sustain its burden of proof on the properness of attachment as required by K.S.A. 60-712, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for an order of prejudgment attachment.”
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.