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

K.S.A. § 60-729 (2026)

Order of garnishment; fee; authorized only by legislative enactment

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

60-729. Order of garnishment; fee; authorized only by legislative enactment. (a) Garnishment is a procedure whereby the wages, money or intangible property of a person can be seized or attached pursuant to an order of garnishment issued by the court under the conditions set forth in the order.

(b) Any party requesting an order of garnishment shall pay a fee in the amount of $7.50 to the clerk of the district court.

(c) A poverty affidavit may be filed in lieu of a fee as established in K.S.A. 60-2001, and amendments thereto.

(d) The fee shall be the only costs assessed in each case for services of the clerk of the district court and the sheriff. The fee shall be disbursed in accordance with K.S.A. 20-362, and amendments thereto.

(e) Except as provided further, the fee established in this section shall be the only fee collected or moneys in the nature of a fee collected for the docket fee. Such fee shall only be established by an act of the legislature and no other authority is established by law or otherwise to collect a fee. On and after July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2025, the supreme court may impose an additional charge, not to exceed $12.50 per fee, to fund the costs of non-judicial personnel.

(f) The state of Kansas and all municipalities in this state, as defined in K.S.A. 12-105a, and amendments thereto, shall be exempt from paying such fee.

History: L. 2002, ch. 198, § 2; L. 2014, ch. 82, § 35; L. 2015, ch. 81, § 23; L. 2017, ch. 80, § 18; L. 2019, ch. 58, § 19; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1947–2025 · leading case: Geer v. Eby, 432 P.3d 1001 (Kan. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Geer v. Eby, 432 P.3d 1001 (Kan. 2019). “" K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-729(a). In a garnishment proceeding, the creditor stands in the shoes of the debtor to enforce only what the debtor could enforce.”
LSF FRANCHISE REO I, LLC v. Emporia Restaurants, Inc., 152 P.3d 34 (Kan. 2007). “If a garnishee bank holds funds in two or more accounts owed to the judgment debtor, the bank may pay the garnishment judgment from any one or more of these accounts. K.S.”
Mckay v. Clark, 178 P.2d 679 (Kan. 1947). · cites it 2× “First, the execution of the written sales contract, the certificate of transfer, and the receipt by appellant of the policy, must be accepted as true under the provisions of section 60-729, G. S. 1935, having been set up in appellee’s answer and no verified denial having been…”
Master Fin. Co. v. Pollard, 283 P.3d 817 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). “Master Finance filed a timely notice of appeal. Pollard did not file a brief. Analysis We begin with a general discussion of garnishments.”
LSF Franchise REO I, LLC v. Emporia Restaurants, Inc., 130 P.3d 1212 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “” In this case, the garnished property consisted of funds in two accounts at Commerce in Polaris’ name. LSF argues on appeal that the funds were in Polaris’ account and were not designated with the bank as funds in which someone else had an interest.”
KDL, Inc. v. Singh, LLC, 444 P.3d 372 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-729(a). The procedure for obtaining an order is entirely statutory.”
State v. Jamerson (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-729(a); K.S.A. 2016 Supp.”
J.J. v. D.N. (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “" K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-729(a). Because the creditor stands in the shoes of the debtor in a garnishment proceeding, the creditor-garnishor may enforce rights of the judgment debtor, including claims a judgment debtor may have against an insurance company.”
B.H. v. P.B. (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “" K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-729(a). Generally, this court applies a bifurcated standard of review to garnishment orders to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence and then whether those findings are sufficient to support…”
State v. Smith (Kan. Ct. App. 2025). “See K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-729; K.S.A. 60-732(c) ("The order of garnishment shall have the effect of attaching: (1) All intangible property .”
— K.S.A. § 60-729(a) — 5 cases
Geer v. Eby, 432 P.3d 1001 (Kan. 2019). “" K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-729(a). In a garnishment proceeding, the creditor stands in the shoes of the debtor to enforce only what the debtor could enforce.”
KDL, Inc. v. Singh, LLC, 444 P.3d 372 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “" K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-729(a). The procedure for obtaining an order is entirely statutory.”
State v. Jamerson (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-729(a); K.S.A. 2016 Supp.”
J.J. v. D.N. (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “" K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-729(a). Because the creditor stands in the shoes of the debtor in a garnishment proceeding, the creditor-garnishor may enforce rights of the judgment debtor, including claims a judgment debtor may have against an insurance company.”
B.H. v. P.B. (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “" K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-729(a). Generally, this court applies a bifurcated standard of review to garnishment orders to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence and then whether those findings are sufficient to support…”
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.