Process, generally

60-204. Process, generally. The methods of serving process set out in article 3 of this chapter constitute sufficient service of process in all civil actions and proceedings, but are alternatives to and do not restrict different methods specifically provided by law. Substantial compliance with any method of serving process effects valid service of process if the court finds that, notwithstanding some irregularity or omission, the party served was made aware that an action or proceeding was pending in a specified court that might affect the party or the party's status or property. History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-204; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 71; July 1. Cross References to Related Sections: Nonresident contractor, agent, 16-113, 16-114. Code of civil procedure for limited actions, process, see chapter 61, article 30. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "Contested Estate Matters After Court Unification," Calvin J. Karlin, 48 J.B.A.K. 97, 101 (1979). "Municipal Courts: A Thought on Notice Procedures," James M. Sheeley, 5 J.K.T.L.A. No. 6, 24, 26 (1982). "Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515. "Survey of Kansas Law: Family Law," Nancy G. Maxwell, 37 K.L.R. 801, 809 (1989). "Child Support Payments in Domestic Matters: Modification of Judgments and Calculation of Arrearage," Dennis Molamphy, XIV J.K.T.L.A. No. 2, 10 (1990). "Bringing the Nonresident Judgment Debtor Back to Kansas," Wes Sechtem and Brian Niceswanger, 59 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 25, 28 (1990). "Walking the Legal Tightrope: Serving Timely Process When Filing State Claims in Federal Court," Matt Corbin and Casey Tourtillott, 73 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 28 (2004). "Walking the Legal Tightrope: Serving Timely Process When Filing State Claims in Federal Court," Matt Corbin, 73 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 28 (2004). "ESI Comes to the K.S.A.: Kansas Adopts Federal Civil Procedure Rules on Electronic Discovery," J. Nick Badgerow, 77 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 30 (2008). "2009 Amendments to the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act and the Kansas Judicial Review Act," Mary Feighny, 78 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 21 (2009). CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Out-of-state service held to be in "substantial compliance" with requirements therefor. Cadwallader v. Lehman, 202 Kan. 738, 747, 451 P.2d 163. 2. Service upon secretary of individual at place of business not substantial compliance with statutory method sufficient to effect valid service. Briscoe v. Getto, 204 Kan. 254, 256, 257, 462 P.2d 127. 3. Provisions of section cannot be invoked to effect valid service of process, unless there first has been substantial compliance with some statutory method of service. Thompson-Kilgariff General Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Haskell, 206 Kan. 465, 467, 468, 479 P.2d 900. 4. Leaving copy of petition and summons with secretary of the defendant not substantial compliance with provisions for personal service. Haley v. Hershberger, 207 Kan. 459, 464, 485 P.2d 1321. 5. Affidavit of service not shown in record; service of process proper; substantial compliance with provisions sufficient. Pedi Bares, Inc. v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 567 F.2d 933, 934, 936. 6. Cited; failure to strictly comply with K.S.A. 60-304(d) nonprejudicial where parties had actual notice. Chee-Craw Teachers Association v. U.S.D. No. 247, 225 Kan. 561, 563, 593 P.2d 406. 7. Motion for substitution; technical irregularity in noncompliance with notice requirements of K.S.A. 60-225(a)(1); substantial compliance. Gatewood v. Bosch, 2 Kan. App. 2d 474, 476, 581 P.2d 1198. 8. Applied in determining that process served in accordance with K.S.A. 60-304 sufficient; jurisdiction of court. McCall v. Lewis, 3 Kan. App. 2d 22, 23, 592 P.2d 469. 9. Substantial compliance with some statutory method of service necessary before statute has validating effect. Bray v. Bayles, 4 Kan. App. 2d 596, 604, 609 P.2d 1146. Reversed in part on other grounds: 228 Kan. 481, 618 P.2d 807. 10. Applied in affirming summary judgment for creditor. Porter v. Stormont-Vail Hospital, 228 Kan. 641, 645, 621 P.2d 411. 11. Service upon resident agent of dissolved corporation during three year wind-up period constitutes valid service on corporation. Vogel v. Missouri Valley Steel, Inc., 229 Kan. 492, 499, 500, 625 P.2d 1123. 12. In action against city, service of process on city attorney did not constitute substantial compliance. Dunn v. City of Emporia, 7 Kan. App. 2d 445, 448, 449, 450, 643 P.2d 1137 (1982). 13. Section does not apply to service under K.S.A. 20-1204 (contempt). Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 234 Kan. 374, 389, 390, 673 P.2d 1126 (1983). 14. Cited by dissent; timely appeal from school board decision not to renew teacher contract. Atkinson v. U.S.D. No. 383, 9 Kan. App. 2d 175, 180, 675 P.2d 917 (1984). 15. Special process server under K.S.A. 60-303 must be authorized in Missouri if defendant served there. Hall v. Quivira Square Development Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 243, 245, 247, 675 P.2d 931 (1984). 16. While interest may accrue on judgment after journal entry on file, no interest accrues on payment in full by defendant partially responsible for total. McGuire v. Sifers, 235 Kan. 368, 381, 383, 681 P.2d 1025 (1984). 17. Cited in holding K.S.A. 79-2804b inapplicable where lack of personal jurisdiction rendered tax title void. Ford v. Willits, 9 Kan. App. 2d 735, 744, 688 P.2d 1230 (1984). 18. Cited; K.S.A. 60-203(b) should be liberally construed to insure just determination of any action despite irregularities or defects in service. Hughes v. Martin, 240 Kan. 370, 372, 375, 729 P.2d 1200 (1986). 19. Question of personal service examined following acquiescence in judgment of divorce decree. In re Marriage of Powell, 13 Kan. App. 2d 174, 178, 766 P.2d 827 (1989). 20. Whether a municipality may be ordered to pay prejudgment interest examined. Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 19 Kan. App. 2d 1087, 1094, 880 P.2d 789 (1994). 21. Knowledge of attempted invalid service by defendant's attorney does not constitute substantial compliance or indicate defendant knew of service. Grimmett v. Burke, 21 Kan. App. 2d 638, 643, 905 P.2d 156 (1995). 22. Mailing of process to state university constituted substantial compliance with statutory service requirements. Brin v. Kansas, 101 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1347 (2000). 23. Knowledge of pendency of action is not a substitute for service. Cook v. Cook, 32 Kan. App. 2d 214, 83 P.3d 1243 (2003). 24. Remanded for determination of interest rates to be applied for prejudgment and postjudgment assessments. ARY Jewelers, L.L.C. v. Krigel, 277 Kan. 464, 85 P.3d 1151 (2004). 25. Service on separately named codefendant did not constitute service on other defendant. Wheat v. Kinslow, 316 F. Supp. 2d 944, 951 (2003). 26. Service of process discussed when state employees are sued in individual capacity; substantial compliance. Spiess v. Meyers, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096 (2007). 27. Cited; service of summons required for court's jurisdiction over defendant. Wallace v. Microsoft Credit Corp., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1200 (2008). 28. Actual knowledge of the pendency of an action is not a substitute for service of process. Le v. Joslin, 41 Kan. App. 2d 280, 202 P.3d 677 (2009). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026