Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 383
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 383.110 (2026)

Landlord's lien for money or supplies furnished -- Enforcement of lien

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

(1) A landlord shall have a superior lien, against which the tenant shall not be entitled to any exemption, upon the whole crop of the tenant raised upon the leased or rented premises to reimburse the landlord for money or property furnished to the tenant to enable him to raise the crop, or to subsist while carrying out his contract of tenancy. But, the lien of the landlord shall not continue for more than one hundred and twenty (120) days after the expiration of the term. If the property upon which there is a lien is removed openly from the leased premises, without fraudulent intent, and not returned, the landlord shall have a superior lien upon the property so removed for fifteen (15) days from the date of its removal, and may enforce his lien against the property wherever found.

(2) The landlord may enforce the lien given in subsection (1) of this section by distress or attachment, in the manner provided in this chapter for the collection of rent and subject to the same liability. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. secs. 2323, 2324.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1954–1954 · leading case: Royalty v. Winchester Bank, 264 S.W.2d 657 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Royalty v. Winchester Bank, 264 S.W.2d 657 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “The evidence discloses Royalty did not have a landlord’s lien within the meaning of KRS 383.110(1). Moreover, the misjoinder of causes of action complained of did not deprive Royalty *658 of any substantial right nor in any way militate against his claim.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 383.110(1) — 1 case
Royalty v. Winchester Bank, 264 S.W.2d 657 (Ky. Ct. App. 1954). “The evidence discloses Royalty did not have a landlord’s lien within the meaning of KRS 383.110(1). Moreover, the misjoinder of causes of action complained of did not deprive Royalty *658 of any substantial right nor in any way militate against his claim.”
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.