Printable Format23-2604. Married person may carry on trade or business; earnings. Any married person may carry on any trade or business, and perform any labor or services, on his or her sole and separate account; and the earnings of any married person from his or her trade, business, labor or services shall be his or her sole and separate property, and may be used and invested by him or her in his or her own name.
History: G.S. 1868, ch. 62, § 4; R.S. 1923, 23-204; L. 1976, ch. 172, § 4; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
23-204.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Divorce Law: Lis Pendens, Judgment Liens, Homestead Exemptions, and Bankruptcy," John C. Peck, Shala M. Bannister and W. Thomas Gilman, 60 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 25 (1991).
"Some issues concerning the property of married persons in Kansas," John C. Peck, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 18 (1999).
"Mine, Yours and Ours: Identifying and Dividing Material Property in an Action for Divorce, Separate Maintenance or Annulment," Douglas C. Cranmer and Jeffrey N. Lowe, 33 J.K.A.J., No. 5, 17 (2010).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Married woman may carry on separate individual business. Tallman v. Jones, 13 Kan. 438, 445.
2. Wife may acquire property by her own industry. Norris v. Corkill, 32 Kan. 409, 412, 4 P. 862.
3. History and purpose of section discussed in construing K.S.A. 23-205. Clark v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, 144 Kan. 344, 346, 58 P.2d 1128.
4. City commissioner's wife stockholder in corporation; corporation's contract with city valid. La Harpe Fuel Co. v. City of Iola, 152 Kan. 445, 449, 105 P.2d 900.
5. Wife cannot maintain action for loss of consortium of husband due to injury to husband. Criqui v. Blaw-Knox Company, 208 F. Supp. 605, 606, 607.
6. Mentioned in opinion holding wife has no cause of action for loss of consortium resulting from husband's injuries. Hoffman v. Dautel, 192 Kan. 406, 414, 388 P.2d 615.
7. Spouse does not acquire joint interest in all property belonging to other spouse by virtue of marriage. In re Oetinger, 49 B.R. 41, 43 (1985).
8. Farmer debtor's wife, herself a farmer debtor, as not entitled to exempt farm equipment as tools of her trade examined. In re Goebel, 75 B.R. 385, 386 (1987).