K.S.A. » Chapter 61
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 61-2707 (2026)

Trial of action; exclusion of attorneys; appearance by others in a representative capacity; enforcement of judgment; certain judgments null and void

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

61-2707. Trial of action; exclusion of attorneys; appearance by others in a representative capacity; enforcement of judgment; certain judgments null and void. (a) The trial of all actions shall be to the court, and except as provided in K.S.A. 61-2714, and amendments thereto, no party in any such action shall be represented by an attorney prior to judgment. A party may appear by a full-time employee or officer or any person in a representative capacity so long as such person is not an attorney. Discovery methods or proceedings shall not be allowed nor shall the taking of depositions for any purpose be permitted. No order of attachment or garnishment shall be issued in any action commenced under this act prior to judgment in such action.

(b) When entering judgment in the action, the judge shall include as a part of the judgment form or order a requirement that, unless the judgment has been paid, the judgment debtor shall submit to the clerk of the district court, within 30 days after receipt of the form therefor, a verified statement describing the location and nature of property and assets which the person owns, including the person's place of employment, account numbers and names of financial institutions holding assets of such person and a description of real property owned by such person. The court shall also include as a part of the judgment form or order a requirement that, within 14 days of the date judgment is entered, unless judgment has been paid, the judgment creditor shall mail a copy of the judgment form or order to the judgment debtor, together with the form for providing the information required to be submitted under this subsection, and that the judgment creditor shall file with the court proof of the mailing thereof. When the form containing the required information is submitted to the clerk as required by this subsection, the clerk shall note in the record of the proceeding that it was received and then shall mail the form to the judgment creditor. No copy of such form shall be retained in the court records nor shall it be made available to other persons. Upon motion of the judgment creditor, the court may punish for contempt any person failing to submit information as required by this subsection.

(c) Any judgment entered under this act on a claim which is not a small claim, as defined in K.S.A. 61-2703, and amendments thereto, or which has been filed with the court in contravention of the limitation prescribed by K.S.A. 61-2704, and amendments thereto, on the number of claims which may be filed by any person, shall be void and unenforceable.

History: L. 1973, ch. 239, § 7; L. 1985, ch. 199, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 145, § 2; L. 2006, ch. 13, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 196; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Babe Houser Motor Co. v. Tetreault, 14 P.3d 1149 (Kan. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Babe Houser Motor Co. v. Tetreault, 14 P.3d 1149 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 8× “61-2705; K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 61-2707(a). The trial is to the court.”
Kansas Bar Ass'n v. Judges of the Third Jud. Dist., 14 P.3d 1154 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 3× “: The Kansas Bar Association (KBA) and Jack and Joel Euler (the Eulers) petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus asking for two things; (1) a declaration that K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 61-2707(a) is unconstitutional; and (2) an order directing the Judges of the Third Judicial…”
Hodges v. Johnson, 199 P.3d 1251 (Kan. 2009). “K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 61-2707(a). When a party is unsuccessful before a small claims court and appeals to the district court pursuant to K.”
Patterson v. Brouhard, 792 P.2d 983 (Kan. 1990). “K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 61-2707. The Code of Civil Procedure for Limited Actions may be used where the amount in controversy or otherwise claimed as damages, excluding cost and interest, does not exceed $5,000.”
Armstrong v. Lowell H. Listrom & Co., 725 P.2d 540 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 61-2707(a). To shield the act from constitutional challenge while preserving the summary nature of small claims proceedings, the legislature guaranteed litigants rights to counsel and to jury trial on de novo appeal to the district court.”
Schaake v. City of Lawrence, 491 P.3d 1265 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “77-109 and K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 61-2707(a) allow nonlawyer representation in small claims court); Carpenters Dist.”
De Young v. Kansas, 890 F. Supp. 949 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “For relief, the plaintiff asks to have K.S.A. 61-2707 declared unconstitutional and for one million dollars in actual damages and another million dollars in punitive damages.”
De Young v. State of Kan., 890 F. Supp. 949 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “For relief, the plaintiff asks to have K.S.A. 61-2707 declared unconstitutional and for one million dollars in actual damages and another million dollars in punitive damages.”
Discover Bank v. May (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 61-2707. May essentially argues this exception is unfair and prejudices an individual's right to represent their own interests.”
— K.S.A. § 61-2707(a) — 5 cases
Babe Houser Motor Co. v. Tetreault, 14 P.3d 1149 (Kan. 2000). “61-2705; K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 61-2707(a). The trial is to the court.”
Kansas Bar Ass'n v. Judges of the Third Jud. Dist., 14 P.3d 1154 (Kan. 2000). “: The Kansas Bar Association (KBA) and Jack and Joel Euler (the Eulers) petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus asking for two things; (1) a declaration that K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 61-2707(a) is unconstitutional; and (2) an order directing the Judges of the Third Judicial…”
Hodges v. Johnson, 199 P.3d 1251 (Kan. 2009). “K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 61-2707(a). When a party is unsuccessful before a small claims court and appeals to the district court pursuant to K.”
Armstrong v. Lowell H. Listrom & Co., 725 P.2d 540 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 61-2707(a). To shield the act from constitutional challenge while preserving the summary nature of small claims proceedings, the legislature guaranteed litigants rights to counsel and to jury trial on de novo appeal to the district court.”
Schaake v. City of Lawrence, 491 P.3d 1265 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “77-109 and K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 61-2707(a) allow nonlawyer representation in small claims court); Carpenters Dist.”
— K.S.A. § 61-2707(c) — 1 case
Armstrong v. Lowell H. Listrom & Co., 725 P.2d 540 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 61-2707(a). To shield the act from constitutional challenge while preserving the summary nature of small claims proceedings, the legislature guaranteed litigants rights to counsel and to jury trial on de novo appeal to the district court.”
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.