Printable Format60-520. Part payment or acknowledgment of liability. (a) Effect. In any case founded on contract, when any part of the principal or interest shall have been paid, or an acknowledgment of an existing liability, debt or claim, or any promise to pay the same, shall have been made, an action may be brought in such case within the period prescribed for the same, after such payment, acknowledgment or promise; but such acknowledgment or promise must be in writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby.
(b) Joint debtors. If there be two or more joint contractors, no one of whom is entitled to act as the agent of the others, no such joint contractor shall lose the benefit of the statute of limitations so as to be chargeable by reason of any acknowledgment, promise or payment made by any other or others of them, unless done with the knowledge and consent of, or satisfied [ratified] by the joint contractor sought to be charged.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-520; January 1, 1964.
Source or prior law:
(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 24; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 23; R.S. 1923, 60-312.
Revisor's Note:
The word "satisfied" in subsection (b) evidently intended to be "ratified."
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Survey of Kansas Law: Contracts," Fred N. Six, 16 K.L.R. 137, 143 (1967).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-312 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Mortgagor's consent to will operated as extension of note and mortgage owned by testatrix. Younger v. Estate of Younger, 198 K. 547, 553, 554, 426 P.2d 67.
2. Acknowledgment of liability must be made to creditor or his representative. Bowen, Administrator v. Lewis, 198 K. 605, 610, 426 P.2d 238.
3. Section cited; 60-206 inapplicable; private contract involved. Barnes v. Gideon, 1 K.A.2d 517, 518, 571 P.2d 42.
4. Acknowledgment under this section must be unequivocal before statute of limitations tolled. Bowen v. Westerhaus, 224 K. 42, 49, 578 P.2d 1102.
5. Cited; former partner not liable for barred partnership debt acknowledged by another; laches. Daniels Trucking, Inc. v. Rogers, 7 K.A.2d 407, 411, 412, 643 P.2d 1108 (1982).
6. Error to grant summary judgment until discovery completed on questions of equitable estoppel and circumstances of part payments. Hustead v. Bendix Corp., 233 K. 870, 873, 876, 877, 878, 666 P.2d 1175 (1983).
7. Installment payments for child support controlled by 60-2403, not statute of limitations. Dallas v. Dallas, 236 K. 92, 94, 689 P.2d 787 (1984).
8. Payment by principal debtor does not toll statute of limitations as to guarantor. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Galloway, 613 F.Supp. 1392, 1398, 1399 (1985).
9. Cited where court found bankruptcy code, read in conjunction with 60-519, tolls statute of limitations during pendency of bankruptcy action. Turner & Boisseau, Chtd. v. Lowrance, 18 K.A.2d 332, 334, 852 P.2d 517 (1993).
10. Whether respondent tolled statute of limitations by acknowledging liability examined; equitable estoppel discussed. Memorial Hosp. v. Carrier Corp., 844 F.Supp. 712 (1994).
11. Statute of limitations period for contract claim was not tolled by IRS litigation. Gray v. Phillips Petroleum, 998 F.Supp. 1221, 1223 (1998).
12. Partial payment on defaulted note, 12 years after last payment, revives entire note (principal and 14% interest). O'Malley v. Frazier, 29 K.A.2d 947, 34 P.3d 478 (2001).
13. Part payment of time-barred note was qualified as to payment of principal only and did not obligate payor to pay past due interest. O'Malley v. Frazier, 274 K. 84, 49 P.3d 438 (2002).