Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 371.030 (2026)

Consideration of writing may be impeached

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The consideration of any writing, with or without seal, may be impeached or denied by pleading. Effective: July 1, 1953 History: Amended 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 49, effective July 1, 1953. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 472.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases, 1943–2005 · leading case: Davis v. Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Ky. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Davis v. Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 785 (W.D. Ky. 2005). · cites it 2× “at 71 ; see also Ky.Rev.Stat. § 371.030 (“The consideration of any writing, with or without seal, may be impeached or denied by pleading.”

OP Link Handle Co. v. Wright, 429 S.W.2d 842 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “KRS 371.030. “It is true that a contemporary oral agreement inconsistent with a written contract, cannot be relied on in the absence of an allegation of fraud or mistake * * and that evidence of a verbal agreement is not admissible to vary or contradict the terms of a note…”

Head v. Head, 169 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). · cites it 2× “Head’s wife in her proposed attempt to collect alimony in the suit for divorce, and for that reason the deed is void. He further reasons that since no legal transfer was made and there were no heirs other than those living at the time of the execution of the Martin Head deed, he…”

Deatley v. Phillips, 225 S.W.2d 296 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). · cites it 2× “The argument of appellees on the question of admissibility of oral testimony to show, if it may be shown, that the alleged release as is incorporated in the answer, does not reflect all of the agreement, is not thoroughly developed in appellee’s brief.”

Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Sewer Dist. v. Gen. Distillers Corp. of Kentucky, 257 S.W.2d 543 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953). “KRS 371.030, with its broad and liberal interpretation, permits parol proof that the true or real consideration for a written contract was different from that recited.”

Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Kinslow, 461 S.W.2d 69 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). “See also KRS 371.030 which provides that the consideration of any writing may be impeached or denied by pleading.”

C. C. Leonard Lumber Co. v. Reed, 236 S.W.2d 961 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “” KRS 371.030 provides: “The *963 considtration of any writing, with, or without seal, may be impeached or denied by pleading verified by oath.”

Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Schmehr, 388 S.W.2d 131 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “) *133 We argee that KRS 371.030 permits by pleading the impeachment or denial of the consideration of any writing.”

Sadler v. Carpenter, 251 S.W.2d 840 (Ky. Ct. App. 1952). “The Carpenters brought this action under the authority given by KRS 371.030, which provides that: “The consideration of any writing, with or without seal, may be impeached or denied 'by pleading verified by oath.”

Ashland Oil & Refining Co. v. Dorton, 189 S.W.2d 394 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “It is true that by virtue of KRS 371.030 the real consideration for the execution of a written contract may be shown by parol without such an allegation; but this does not mean that the consideration so shown may be made the basis of a recovery by one of the contracting parties…”

Crider v. Franklin Bank & Trust Co., 481 S.W.2d 56 (Ky. Ct. App. 1972). “The rule against the admission of parol evidence to change the terms of a written contract is subject to a well-established exception, first by KRS 371.030, which pertains to contracts generally, and more specifically by KRS 355.”

Fontana v. Fontana, 237 S.W.2d 844 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). · cites it 2× “” These words alone, though somewhat vague, in the absence of any proof concerning the circumstances that led up to the execution of the instrument might easily be construed to mean that the appellant was the owner in fee simple of the remainder after appellee’s life estate.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.