60-1701. Jurisdiction; generally. Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare the rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is, or could be sought. No action or proceeding shall be dismissed or stayed for the sole reason that only declaratory relief has been sought. The declaratory may be either affirmative or negative in nature; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1701; L. 1993, ch. 202, § 1; July 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1921, ch. 168, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-3127; L. 1941, ch. 289, §§ 1–3.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Article 17 referred to and procedure declared, see 60-257.
Motion for judgment on pleadings treated as for summary judgment, disposition, see 60-212(c).
Joinder of claims and remedies, see 60-218.
Joinder of parties, see 60-219.
Jury trial pursuant to 60-238, 60-239 may be demanded, see 60-257.
Deposition and discovery pending action, see 60-226.
Summary judgment, motion and proceeding thereon, see 60-256.
Taxation of costs, see 60-2002.
Another adequate remedy does not preclude judgment, see 60-257.
Appeals, see 60-2102.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Inchoate Dower and the Marketable Title," David K. Fromme, 4 W.L.J. 240, 251 (1965).
A regulation not within definition of "rule or regulation" in K.S.A. 77-415(4) would fall within meaning of term as used in civil code, Winton M. Hinkle, 7 W.L.J. 61, 73 (1967).
Discussion of developments in debtor-creditor law between 1965 and 1969, Robert B. Morton, 18 K.L.R. 351, 380 (1970).
"Survey of Tort Damages," Jerry G. Larson, Tim O'Sullivan, 14 W.L.J. 466, 469 (1975).
Survey of civil procedure, Elizabeth R. Herbert, 15 W.L.J. 315, 317 (1976).
"The Kansas Open Meeting Act: Sunshine on the Sunflower State?" Deanell R. Tacha, 25 K.L.R. 169, 203 (1977).
"Judicial Review of Administrative Action—Kansas Perspectives," David L. Ryan, 19 W.L.J. 423, 425 (1980).
"Open Meetings Profile: The Prosecutor's View," Bradley J. Smoot and Louis M. Clothier, 20 W.L.J. 241, 285 (1981).
"Kansas Diversion: Defendant's Remedies and Prosecutorial Opportunities," Joseph Brian Cox, 20 W.L.J. 344, 351 (1981).
"The Revised Uniform Principal and Income Act in Kansas: Misunderstood or Simply Mistreated?" Jeffrey D. Arbuckle and Eric J. Larson, 52 J.K.B.A. 24, 32 (1983).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-3127, 60-3132a, 60-3132c and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. If there is an actual controversy a demurrer will not lie and defendant must file an answer. Savage v. Savage, 192 Kan. 230, 232, 387 P.2d 190.
2. Mentioned; city ordinance providing for paving and grading street held invalid. Terrill v. City of Lawrence, 193 Kan. 229, 392 P.2d 909.
3. Mentioned; K.S.A. 60-502 held conflicting, ambiguous and void. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co. v. Wetschensky, 193 Kan. 706, 396 P.2d 295.
4. Summary judgment not available to interpret intrastate certificate of convenience and necessity. Pelican Transfer & Storage v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 195 Kan. 76, 78, 402 P.2d 762.
5. State district court is a proper court for the administration of a trust estate. Coleman v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 39, 44.
6. Action filed for construction of will under G.S. 1949, 60-3127. Mathews, Administrator v. Savage, 195 Kan. 501, 503, 407 P.2d 559.
7. Actual controversy existed in action involving interpretation of statute relating to garnishment; prior law, G.S. 1949, 60-3127 through 60-3132c, considered. Wagner v. Mahaffey, 195 Kan. 586, 587, 408 P.2d 602.
8. Case concerning storage by liquor dealers of beer under controlled refrigeration properly determined hereunder. Willcott v. Murphy, 204 Kan. 640, 642, 465 P.2d 959.
9. Cited in holding cable television franchising ordinance void; action converted to declaratory judgment action. Capitol Cable, Inc. v. City of Topeka, 209 Kan. 152, 153, 495 P.2d 885.
10. Mandamus does not lie to compel unauthorized act; supreme court refused to render declaratory judgment; no actual controversy. Johnson County Sports Authority v. Shanahan, 210 Kan. 253, 499 P.2d 1090.
11. Action to determine construction of K.S.A. 21-4310 (Cruelty to Animals); cockfighting does not fall within prohibition of that section. State, ex rel., v. Claiborne, 211 Kan. 264, 505 P.2d 732.
12. Oil and gas lease can be construed properly on motion for summary judgment where no genuine issue of fact or ambiguity. Wulf v. Shultz, 211 Kan. 724, 725, 508 P.2d 896.
13. Action to determine intention of parties to ambiguous contract brought hereunder. Mobile Acres, Inc. v. Kurata, 211 Kan. 833, 834, 508 P.2d 889.
14. Action filed for determination of validity of guaranty of payment; guaranty not in compliance with statute of frauds. Kutilek v. Union National Bank of Wichita, 213 Kan. 407, 408, 409, 410, 516 P.2d 979.
15. Standing to challenge franchise ordinance lacking where plaintiff's only damage would result from competition; action hereunder properly dismissed. KAKE-TV & Radio, Inc. v. City of Wichita, 213 Kan. 537, 538, 539, 516 P.2d 929.
16. Action hereunder; railroad entitled to compensation for expenses in relocating tracks due to urban renewal project; exculpatory agreement inapplicable. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. City of Topeka, 213 Kan. 658, 518 P.2d 372.
17. Action hereunder to cancel or rescind lease agreements; no violation of rule against perpetuities. Singer Company v. Makad, Inc., 213 Kan. 725, 726, 518 P.2d 493.
18. Action mentioned in bankruptcy action; declaratory judgment action available to trustee after homestead claim filed. Stafos v. Jarvis, 477 F.2d 369, 371.
19. Declaratory relief from implementation of no-fault insurance act (K.S.A. 40-3101 et seq.) sought hereunder. Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 592, 522 P.2d 1291.
20. Applied; controversy involving interpretation of will may be determined whether or not relief be claimed at the time. Woolums v. Simonsen, 214 Kan. 722, 727, 522 P.2d 1321.
21. Action hereunder to determine whether ordinance adopted under K.S.A. 12-1013 administrative. City of Lawrence v. McArdle, 214 Kan. 862, 866, 522 P.2d 420.
22. Issue not raised in probate court; controversy over validity of restraints; declaratory judgment action proper. Harvey v. Harvey, 215 Kan. 472, 477, 524 P.2d 1187.
23. Judgment hereunder against civil rights commission set aside; administrative remedies not exhausted. Jarvis v. Kansas Commission on Civil Rights, 215 Kan. 902, 906, 528 P.2d 1232.
24. Venue of action governed by same rules as other types of action; based on statute; action to construe insurance policy. Alliance Life Ins. Co. v. Ulysses Volunteer Firemen's Relief Assn., 215 Kan. 937, 940, 529 P.2d 171.
25. Action hereunder to determine which of two insurers to defend negligence action dismissed; no abuse of discretion. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 216 Kan. 5, 9, 531 P.2d 9.
26. Action hereunder to determine proper apportionment of debts and other demands against decedent's estate among assets passing by will. Jackson v. Jackson, 217 Kan. 448, 449, 536 P.2d 1400.
27. Section cited; interpleader appropriate. Club Exchange Corporation v. Searing, 222 Kan. 659, 661, 567 P.2d 1353.
28. Controversy involving validity or interpretation of statute meets "actual controversy" requirement hereunder. Cady v. Cady, 224 Kan. 339, 345, 581 P.2d 358.
29. Action hereunder proper in questioning propriety of platting and in determining whether taking has occurred by inverse condemnation. Ventures in Property I v. City of Wichita, 225 Kan. 698, 699, 704, 594 P.2d 671.
30. Plaintiff entitled to declaratory relief; mandamus properly denied. Hill v. City of Lawrence, 2 Kan. App. 2d 457, 582 P.2d 1155.
31. Action hereunder for determination of rights and duties under corporate shareholders' agreement. Schaefer & Associates v. Schirmer, 3 Kan. App. 2d 114, 115, 590 P.2d 1087.
32. Statutory duties and authority of commissioner of insurance relating to regulation of mutual nonprofit hospital and medical service corporations considered and applied. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Bell, 227 Kan. 426, 427, 607 P.2d 498.
33. Authority to require combined reporting for corporate tax liability; no actual controversy ripe for determination. Department of Revenue v. Dow Chemical Co., 231 Kan. 37, 39, 43, 642 P.2d 104 (1982).
34. Review of any decision of quasi-judicial body must be by appeal, not by declaratory judgment action. Ratley v. Sheriff's Civil Service Board, 7 Kan. App. 2d 638, 639, 646 P.2d 1133 (1982).
35. Validity of zoning ordinance reviewable by appeal (K.S.A. 12-712); no jurisdiction for collateral attack hereunder. St. John v. City of Salina, 9 Kan. App. 2d 636, 638, 684 P.2d 464 (1984).
36. Courts of record authorized to issue declaratory judgments in cases of actual controversy. State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 236 Kan. 45, 51, 687 P.2d 622 (1984).
37. Purpose of statute reviewed; constitutionality of county home rule resolution regulating adult entertainment centers considered. Moody v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 237 Kan. 67, 69, 73, 697 P.2d 1310 (1985).
38. Cited; preemption of state law governing secured transactions by federal statutes examined. Rural Gas, Inc. v. North Central Kan. Prod. Cred. Corp., 243 Kan. 109, 110, 755 P.2d 529 (1988).
39. Declaratory judgment determination between insurer and insured not binding on injured third person not a party to action (K.S.A. 60-219). Heinson v. Porter, 244 Kan. 667, 671, 772 P.2d 778 (1989).
40. Declaratory judgment action determined as improper avenue in dispute between bank and depositor over unauthorized drawer's signature (K.S.A. 84-3-406). Wichita Computer & Supply, Inc. v. Mulvane State Bank, 15 Kan. App. 2d 258, 263, 805 P.2d 1255 (1991).
41. Act for judicial review of agency actions (K.S.A. 77-601 et seq.) noted as exclusive means of review unless agency specifically exempted. Kansas Sunset Assocs. v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 16 Kan. App. 2d 1, 3, 818 P.2d 797 (1991).
42. Declaratory judgment sought hereunder proper to determine whether plaintiff was public utility for property tax purposes. First Page, Inc. v. Cunningham, 252 Kan. 593, 594, 847 P.2d 1238 (1993).
43. Declaratory judgment not appealable if issues relating to further relief remain to be determined. Amco Ins. Co. v. Beck, 258 Kan. 726, 728, 907 P.2d 137 (1995).
44. Decision concerning negotiability of contract provision under PNA (K.S.A. 72-5413 et seq.) determined by secretary of human resources, not declaratory judgment action. Junction City Education Ass'n v. U.S.D. No. 475, 264 Kan. 212, 214, 223, 955 P.2d 1266 (1998).
45. Insured entitled to attorney fees in defending insurer's action challenging duty to defend and coverage where coverage existed. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kurtenbach, 265 Kan. 465, 478, 961 P.2d 53 (1998).
46. Executor's appeal to supreme court allowed praying for declaratory judgment in construction of will. In re Estate of Keller, 273 Kan. 981, 46 P.3d 1135 (2002).
47. Railroad required to exhaust self-insured retentions before it can seek recovery on excess liability policies. AT&SF Ry. Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 275 Kan. 698, 71 P.3d 1097 (2003).
48. Sexual predator treatment program participant challenges lack of formal disciplinary procedure, KJRA held applicable, not K.S.A. 60-1501 or 60-1701. Williams v. DesLauriers, 38 Kan. App. 2d 629, 632, 172 P.3d 42 (2007).
49. Declaratory judgment action regarding prepayment premium on loan; agreement authorized payment of attorney fees. Santa Rosa KM Assocs. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 41 Kan. App. 2d 840, 206 P.3d 40 (2009).
50. Chief district judge had standing to bring declaratory judgment action to challenge whether legislation changing the process for appointing chief judge was constitutional. Solomon v. State, 303 Kan. 512, 522, 364 P.3d 536 (2015).
|