Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 372
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 372.070 (2026)

Sale of land adversely held -- Subjection to claims of judgment creditor

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Any sale or conveyance, including those made under execution, of any land, or the pretended right or title thereto, of which any other person has adverse possession at the time of the sale or conveyance, is void; but this section does not render void any devise of land in adverse possession.

(2) A judgment creditor, after a return on the execution of no property found, may file a petition in equity to subject any real estate to which the defendant has legal or equitable title even if the property is in the adverse possession of another. The person in possession shall be made a defendant in any such action. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 210.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1943–2024 · leading case: Henninger v. Brewster, 357 S.W.3d 920 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henninger v. Brewster, 357 S.W.3d 920 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 12× “However, “[u]n-der this statute (KRS 372.070) possession ... need not be for any specific length of time.”
Coblentz v. Day, 540 S.W.3d 384 (Ky. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Day's complaint also alleged the deed to the Coblentz farm was void under the champerty statute, KRS 372.070, which voids a conveyance of land by a grantor to a grantee when the land is being held adversely by a third party.”
Johnson v. Kirk, 648 S.W.2d 878 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The Johnsons’ sole contention is “The Pike Circuit Court’s decision that the appel-lees were adversely possessing the property and therefore the conveyance to the appellants was champertous is erroneous as a matter of law”.”
Wells v. Wells, 346 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 2× “Appellee had specifically alleged adverse possession by limitation and had sought reformation of the deed of conveyance on the ground that it was, in fact, a deed of trust.”
Great W. Land Mgmt., Inc. v. Slusher, 939 S.W.2d 865 (Ky. 1997). “Champerty The circuit court ruled that the Stewarts were barred from claiming title to the mineral estate under KRS 372.070, the champerty statute. The Court of Appeals found this ruling to be in error.”
Thurman v. Doss, 229 S.W.2d 317 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). · cites it 2× “In their reply, appellees plead and rely upon KRS section 372.070. By agreement, the affirmative matter of the reply is controverted of record.”
White Log Jellico Coal Co. v. Zipp, 32 S.W.3d 92 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “ive mining activities that it had permitted; (3) that White Log had established a claim in adverse possession because of the failure of one grantor to sign the 1958 deed, rendering White Log a joint tenant owning \ interest — and that the trial court erred in failing to…”
Cowherd v. Brooks, 456 S.W.2d 827 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “The judgment of the lower court is based upon findings of fact that the appellees had adversely claimed the property for more than the 15-year statutory period and that the deed by which appellants acquired record title is void as being champertous and in contravention of KRS…”
Vaughan v. Holderer, 531 S.W.2d 520 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “We do not pass upon appellant’s contention that KRS 372.070 is applicable only as a defense because nothing in the record indicates that argument was brought to the attention of the trial judge.”
Shepherd v. Morgan, 246 S.W.2d 131 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “210, now KRS 372.070. As we have reached the conclusion that appellees have good paper title as well as title by adverse possession, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider or discuss the question of champerty.”
Big Run Coal & Clay Co. v. Helton, 323 S.W.2d 855 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). “KRS 372.070. The simple answer to this is that the land was not in appellant’s possession, but was in the possession of the Calvin heirs.”
Hensley v. Clay, 208 S.W.2d 501 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). “7 previous to appellant’s purchase of that lot, the Chancellor determined that appellant’s claim to that portion upon which the store building was constructed is champertous and violative of KRS 372.070, which, in so far as pertinent, provides: “Any sale or conveyance,’including…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 372.070(1) — 8 cases
Henninger v. Brewster, 357 S.W.3d 920 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012). “However, “[u]n-der this statute (KRS 372.070) possession ... need not be for any specific length of time.”
Johnson v. Kirk, 648 S.W.2d 878 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983). “The Johnsons’ sole contention is “The Pike Circuit Court’s decision that the appel-lees were adversely possessing the property and therefore the conveyance to the appellants was champertous is erroneous as a matter of law”.”
White Log Jellico Coal Co. v. Zipp, 32 S.W.3d 92 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). “ive mining activities that it had permitted; (3) that White Log had established a claim in adverse possession because of the failure of one grantor to sign the 1958 deed, rendering White Log a joint tenant owning \ interest — and that the trial court erred in failing to…”
Vaughan v. Holderer, 531 S.W.2d 520 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). “We do not pass upon appellant’s contention that KRS 372.070 is applicable only as a defense because nothing in the record indicates that argument was brought to the attention of the trial judge.”
Walden v. Baker, 343 S.W.2d 797 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961).
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.