K.S.A. » Chapter 79
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 79-1701 (2026)

Correction of clerical errors by county clerk

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

79-1701. Correction of clerical errors by county clerk. The county clerk shall, prior to November 1, correct the following clerical errors in the assessment and tax rolls for the current year, which are discovered prior to such date:

(a) Errors in the description or quantity of real estate listed;

(b) errors which have caused improvements to be assessed upon real estate when no such improvements were in existence;

(c) errors whereby improvements located upon one tract or lot of real estate have been assessed as being upon another tract or lot;

(d) errors whereby taxes have been charged upon property which the state board of tax appeals has specifically declared to be exempt from taxation under the constitution or laws of the state;

(e) errors whereby the taxpayer has been assessed twice in the same year for the same property in one or more taxing districts in the county;

(f) errors whereby the assessment of either real or personal property has been assigned to a taxing district in which the property did not have its taxable situs; and

(g) errors whereby the values or taxes are understated or overstated as a result of a mathematical miscomputation on the part of the county.

History: L. 1913, ch. 322, § 1; L. 1917, ch. 321, § 1; R.S. 1923, 79-1701; L. 1939, ch. 319, § 1; L. 1943, ch. 291, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 496, § 1; L. 1985, ch. 317, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 123, § 6; L. 2008, ch. 109, § 97; L. 2014, ch. 141, § 104; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1952–2010 · leading case: Wirt v. Esrey, 662 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wirt v. Esrey, 662 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 14× “74-2439 and K.S.A. 79-1701 et seq. 10. On or about February 3,1977, BOTA made and entered its order, copies of which were mailed to the parties on February 8, 1977, which order described the issues as follows: “5.”
In Re the Protest of United Ag Servs., Inc., 159 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 9× “79-1475; (iii) there was no clerical error correctable under K.S.A. 79-1701 et seq.-, and (iv) the subject property was real estate of a public utility subject to separate valuation and assessment under K.”
In Re an Order of the Bd. of Tax Appeals, 691 P.2d 394 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 7× “We now turn to K.S.A. 79-1701, K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 79-l701a and -1702, utilized by the district court instead of K.”
In Re Tax Relief Application of Hocker, 27 P.3d 914 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 27× “The appellants argue the county’s misclassification of their real property is a clerical error within the meaning of K.S.A. 79-1701. We affirm. The facts in this case are undisputed.”
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 860 P.2d 56 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “79-1702 in pertinent part provides: “If any taxpayer or any municipality or taxing district shall have a grievance not remediable under the provisions of K.S.A. 79-1701 or 79-1701a, and amendments thereto, .”
In Re Lakeview Gardens, Inc., 605 P.2d 576 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “That statute authorizes any person having a grievance not remediable under K.S.A. 79-1701 or 79-1701a (dealing with clerical errors), or *165 remedial thereunder but not remedied by the proper officials, to present the matter to the Board of Tax Appeals.”
St. Catherine Hosp. v. Roop, 122 P.3d 414 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 22× “: In this consolidated appeal, two Finney County taxpayers appeal a district court order that upheld a decision of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) denying their tax grievance applications under K.S.A. 79-1701 for lack of jurisdiction. The two taxpayers are Farm Gold, L.”
In re Unified Sch. Dist. No. 437, 757 P.2d 314 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 79-1701 authorizes the county clerk to correct eight different types of errors for a current year, which are discovered prior to November 1, including “errors whereby the assessment of either real or personal property has been assigned to a taxing district in…”
In Re Application of TV Realty, 997 P.2d 742 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “BOTA also rejected TV Realty’s argument that it was entitled to relief under the “clerical error” statute, K.S.A. 79-1701 and 79-1701a. BOTA found that the clerk’s failure to record the name and mailing address of the new owner was not one of the “clerical errors” specifically…”
In Re the Tax Appeal of Dillon Real Est. Co., 228 P.3d 1080 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 27× “79-2005 in order to claim its refunds under these circumstances. Concluding that Dillon’s tax grievance was the proper vehicle to seek its tax refunds, we affirm the Court of Tax Appeals.”
In Re Application of Kinnet, 984 P.2d 725 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “79-1702 provides a remedy for grievances not otherwise remediable: “If any taxpayer or any municipality or taxing district shall have a grievance not remediable under the provisions of K.S.A. 79-1701 or 79-1701a, and amendments thereto, or which was remediable thereunder and…”
Harry Turner & Assoc., Inc. v. Shawnee Cnty. (In Re Harry Turner & Assocs., Inc.), 153 B.R. 573 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1993). · cites it 7× “CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES The County contends that certain Kansas statutes authorize it to correct errors in the tax rolls, including erroneously listing property as exempt, and collect taxes which were improperly omitted from those rolls, citing K.S.A. 79-1701, et seq., and…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 79-1701(a) — 3 cases
In Re Tax Relief Application of Hocker, 27 P.3d 914 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “The appellants argue the county’s misclassification of their real property is a clerical error within the meaning of K.S.A. 79-1701. We affirm. The facts in this case are undisputed.”
St. Catherine Hosp. v. Roop, 122 P.3d 414 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “: In this consolidated appeal, two Finney County taxpayers appeal a district court order that upheld a decision of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) denying their tax grievance applications under K.S.A. 79-1701 for lack of jurisdiction. The two taxpayers are Farm Gold, L.”
In Re the Tax Appeal of Dillon Real Est. Co., 228 P.3d 1080 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “79-2005 in order to claim its refunds under these circumstances. Concluding that Dillon’s tax grievance was the proper vehicle to seek its tax refunds, we affirm the Court of Tax Appeals.”
— K.S.A. § 79-1701(b) — 1 case
In Re an Order of the Bd. of Tax Appeals, 691 P.2d 394 (Kan. 1984). “We now turn to K.S.A. 79-1701, K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 79-l701a and -1702, utilized by the district court instead of K.”
— K.S.A. § 79-1701(c) — 1 case
In Re Tax Relief Application of Hocker, 27 P.3d 914 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “The appellants argue the county’s misclassification of their real property is a clerical error within the meaning of K.S.A. 79-1701. We affirm. The facts in this case are undisputed.”
— K.S.A. § 79-1701(f) — 1 case
In Re the Tax Appeal of Dillon Real Est. Co., 228 P.3d 1080 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “79-2005 in order to claim its refunds under these circumstances. Concluding that Dillon’s tax grievance was the proper vehicle to seek its tax refunds, we affirm the Court of Tax Appeals.”
— K.S.A. § 79-1701(g) — 5 cases
In Re the Protest of United Ag Servs., Inc., 159 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “79-1475; (iii) there was no clerical error correctable under K.S.A. 79-1701 et seq.-, and (iv) the subject property was real estate of a public utility subject to separate valuation and assessment under K.”
In re Unified Sch. Dist. No. 437, 757 P.2d 314 (Kan. 1988). “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 79-1701 authorizes the county clerk to correct eight different types of errors for a current year, which are discovered prior to November 1, including “errors whereby the assessment of either real or personal property has been assigned to a taxing district in…”
In Re Tax Relief Application of Hocker, 27 P.3d 914 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “The appellants argue the county’s misclassification of their real property is a clerical error within the meaning of K.S.A. 79-1701. We affirm. The facts in this case are undisputed.”
In Re the Tax Appeal of Dillon Real Est. Co., 228 P.3d 1080 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “79-2005 in order to claim its refunds under these circumstances. Concluding that Dillon’s tax grievance was the proper vehicle to seek its tax refunds, we affirm the Court of Tax Appeals.”
St. Catherine Hosp. v. Roop, 122 P.3d 414 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “: In this consolidated appeal, two Finney County taxpayers appeal a district court order that upheld a decision of the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) denying their tax grievance applications under K.S.A. 79-1701 for lack of jurisdiction. The two taxpayers are Farm Gold, L.”
— K.S.A. § 79-1701(h) — 2 cases
In Re the Protest of United Ag Servs., Inc., 159 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “79-1475; (iii) there was no clerical error correctable under K.S.A. 79-1701 et seq.-, and (iv) the subject property was real estate of a public utility subject to separate valuation and assessment under K.”
In Re Tax Relief Application of Hocker, 27 P.3d 914 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “The appellants argue the county’s misclassification of their real property is a clerical error within the meaning of K.S.A. 79-1701. We affirm. The facts in this case are undisputed.”
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.