Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-208

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a pleading to state a claim showing entitlement to relief; allegations identifying no present or prospective legal injury do not suffice.

Danzman v. Herington Municipal Hosp. Bd. of Trustees · filed 2022-09-09(a)(1)

The pleadings, however, do not allege that either the City or the hospital board acted without legal authority or in violation of a statutory or common-law duty. So the papers assert no present or prospective legal injury, i.e., a claim. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-208(a)(1) (pleading must contain "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief").

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short and plain statement of a claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Brull v. Kansas Dept. for Aging and Disability Svcs. · filed 2024-11-01(a)(1)

The amended petition is a rambling and discursive narrative that bears no resemblance to the "short and plain statement of [a] claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" described in K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-208(a)(1).

Section 60-208(a) follows Kansas’s traditional pleading standard; a petition need not satisfy the federal plausibility standard.

Williams v. C-U-Out Bail Bonds · filed 2017-08-18(a)

Despite the logical appeal of the federal plausibility standard and despite the similarity of our rule (K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-208[a]) to the federal rule (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8[a][2]), the Kansas Supreme Court has not adopted the federal standard as its recent case demonstrates: ... Finding no indication of departure, we apply our traditional standard stated above.

Section 60-208 requires a pleading to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, equivalent to the former requirement to state the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language.

National Bank of America at Salina v. Calhoun · filed 1966-01-25

Subsection (b) of K.S.A. 60-308 uses the phrase “cause of action”. The Kansas Rules of Civil Procedure, effective January 1, 1964 adopted the language of the Federal Rules describing the basis of an action as a “claim”. K.S.A. 60-208. No provisions, similar to 60-308(b) is found in the Federal Rules. We find in Gard’s Kansas Code of Civil Procedure Ann.P. 30 the statement that the requirement that the pleading shall contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” says the same thing as the former statutory language, “statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language.” This statement we approve and adopt. We believe the Supreme Court of Kansas would declare this to be the Kansas law.

Section 60-208 requires a petition to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, together with a demand for relief.

Malone v. University of Kansas Medical Center · filed 1976-07-23

We no longer have the requirement in our law that a petition set forth a “cause of action” with particularity and specificity. The petition merely need set forth “a short and plain statement of tire claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and a demand for relief. K. S. A. 60-208.

Subsection (a)(1) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, under a liberal notice-pleading standard.

Montoy v. State · filed 2003-01-24(a)(1)

K.S.A. 60-208(a)(1) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a pleading to give a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

PIONEER RIDGE NURSING FACIL. OPER. v. Ermey · filed 2009-03-06(a)(1)

K.S.A. 60-208(a)(1) requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and the court applies liberal construction in deciding whether a claim has been stated.

Pioneer Ridge Nursing Facility Operations, L.L.C. v. Ermey · filed 2009-03-06(a)(1)

K.S.A. 60-208(a)(1) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” ... “A rule of liberal construction applies when judging whether a claim has been stated.”

Section 60-208 requires a petition to contain only a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for judgment, without requiring claims to be categorized or legal authority to be cited.

Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. · filed 2014-07-18

Under Kansas' liberal notice-pleading rules, the only information Plaintiffs were required to include in their petition was: "(1) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems such pleader's self entitled." K.S.A. 60-208; see also Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 235 Kan. 440, 446-48, 681 P.2d 630 (1984) (outlining various principles underlying concept of notice pleading under Kansas law). Plaintiffs were under no obligation to categorize their causes of action or cite statutory authority or common-law bases for the suit.

Section 60-208 requires a petition to contain only a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief sought.

North American Savings Bank v.Volkland · filed 2015-10-02

"Under Kansas' liberal notice-pleading rules, the only information Plaintiffs were required to include in their petition was: '(1) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems such pleader's self entitled.' K.S.A. 60-208; see also Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc., 235 Kan. 440, 446-48, 681 P.2d 630 (1984) (outlining various principles underlying concept of notice pleading under Kansas law)."

Section 60-208(a) requires a petition to contain a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment; the legal theory need not be detailed if the facts apprise the defendant of the basis for the claim.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Denson · filed 2016-08-19(a)

Kansas is a notice-pleading state. As a general rule, a petition need contain only '(1) [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems such pleader's self entitled.' K.S.A. 60-208(a). A legal theory for relief need not be detailed, so long as the petition apprises the defendant of the facts upon which the plaintiff claims to be entitled to relief.

Section 60-208(a) requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for relief, and a petition meets the minimum pleading requirement when it gives defendants notice of the claims, factual basis, and requested relief.

Matson v. State · filed 2024-09-06(a)

The district court accurately set forth the standard for notice pleading in Kansas, which generally requires merely a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . and . . . a demand for the relief." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-208(a). ... This court agrees that Matson's petition meets the minimum requirements for stating a claim by adequately providing notice to the defendants of his claims, including the factual basis and his requested relief.

Subsection (a) requires only a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief sought.

Creative Planning v. Greco · filed 2026-05-15(a)

In Kansas, notice pleading is the rule—which requires merely that pleadings contain "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and a "demand for the relief sought." K.S.A 60-208(a); see also H.B., 315 Kan. at 317 ("a pleading requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment").

Section 60-208(a) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim and a demand for relief, while subsection (e) directs courts to construe pleadings so as to do justice.

T.U. v. Baker · filed 2026-06-18(a), (e)

So generally, a petition needs only "(1) [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for the relief sought." K.S.A. 60-208(a). A legal theory of relief need not be detailed, so long as the petition apprises the defendant of the facts on which the plaintiff claims to be entitled to relief. Beck v. Kansas Adult Authority, 241 Kan. 13, 25, 735 P.2d 222 (1987); see also K.S.A. 60-208(e) (directing courts to construe pleadings "so as to do justice").

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a pleading to give fair notice of the claim; allegations of an agreement, performance, and an unpaid balance adequately state a contract claim.

Producers Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Thomason · filed 1991-04-05(a)(1)

Our reading of the petition leads us to agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the petition provides adequate notice that a contract claim was being asserted by Producers.

Section 60-208 requires only a basic pleading that outlines the nature of the claim.

Lytle v. Stearns · filed 1992-04-20

K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-208 now requires only a bare-bones pleading that outlines the nature of the claim. Because broad discovery is available to fill in the gaps, there is no need for technical pleading.

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short, plain statement that presents the essential basis of a claim understandably; the court cannot supply a claim the petition does not plead.

Meyer Land & Cattle Co. v. Lincoln County Conservation District · filed 2001-09-14(a)(1)

K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-208(a)(l) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. However, traditional causes of action and rules for pleading causes of action still occupy an important position in law. Notice pleading did not do away with the traditional causes of action or the need to at least present the “bare bones” of the cause of action in the petition in a concise and understandable manner. The claim is to be provided by the petitioner and not by the supposition of the court.

Section 60-208(a) requires a short and plain statement of the claim and a demand for relief; a pleading need not label the legal theory supporting the claim.

Lumry v. State, Kansas Bureau of Investigation · filed 2013-08-16(a)

But Kansas adheres to notice pleading. In other words, a pleading is sufficient if it contains “[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ and “a demand for the relief sought.” K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 60-208(a).

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short and plain statement of the claim; a petition need not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Kahn v. Denison State Bank · filed 2016-02-19(a)(1)

As to the sufficiency of the facts Kahn made in support of her KCPA claims, we are satisfied that she complied with the pleading requirement of "[a] short and plain statement of [her] claim." K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-208(a)(1).

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief.

Page v. Haun · filed 2016-08-26(a)(1)

K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-208(a)(1) merely requires that a plaintiff make "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short and plain statement that presents the bare bones of a cause of action; a court cannot supply missing allegations by supposition.

T.H. and C.C. v. University of Kansas Hosp. Auth. · filed 2017-01-06(a)(1)

Notice pleading did not do away with the traditional causes of action or the need to at least present the bare bones of the cause of action in the petition in a concise and understandable manner; the claim is to be provided by the petitioner and not by the supposition of the court.

Section 60-208(a)(1)'s notice pleading standard requires a petition to allege facts supporting a specific intent to injure when the claim depends on malice.

T.H. and C.C. v. University of Kansas Hosp. Auth. · filed 2017-01-06(a)(1)

When the cause of action depends on a showing that the defendant acted with malice, to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the petition must sufficiently allege a specific intent to injure.

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a civil petition to provide notice, without detailed factual representations.

Love v. State · filed 2019-04-12(a)(1)

But a plaintiff bringing a civil action need only provide notice—not detailed factual representations—in a petition.

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a petition to include a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for relief.

In re NIC, Inc. · filed 2024-01-12(a)(1)

Kansas requires notice pleading, which means the petition need only include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and a demand for relief. K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-208(a)(1).

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short, plain statement of the claim that gives notice of how the defendant allegedly violated the plaintiff's rights.

Baker v. Blue Valley School Board · filed 2024-02-23(a)(1)

Kansas is a notice-pleading state, meaning a petition need only include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and a demand for relief. ... The mere assertion that rights exist does not confer sufficient notice about how the School Districts' action violated those rights.

A petition generally needs only a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for relief.

I-135 Auto Auction v. McMaster · filed 2024-07-05(a)

Generally, a petition needs only "(1) [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for relief sought." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-208(a).

Section 60-208(a) requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for relief. A petition need not detail a legal theory, but it must allege facts supporting relief.

McGarrah v. Connell · filed 2025-05-02(a)

And under this standard, a petition generally needs only "(1) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for the relief sought." K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 60-208(a); see also K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 60-208(e) (requiring courts to construe pleadings "so as to do justice"). So a legal theory of relief need not be detailed. Still, the petition must allege facts showing the petitioner is entitled to relief.

Section 60-208(a) requires a petition to include a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for relief.

Mattice v. City of Stafford · filed 2021-09-17(a)

Kansas requires only notice pleading, which means the petition need only include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and a demand for relief.

Section 60-208(a) requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for relief; factual allegations can give sufficient notice without naming the legal theory.

Conard v. Neosho Drilling · filed 2025-02-14(a)

Instead, K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-208(a) only requires a petition to include a "short and plain statement" showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief sought. ... Under Kansas' notice-pleading standards, these factual allegations were sufficient to apprise Houston that the Conards believed they were entitled to relief on their quiet title claim because of his actions in abandoning his personal property.

Section 60-208(a) requires a pleading to contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for judgment.

James v. City of Wichita · filed 1968-12-07(a)

K. S. A. 60-208 (a) provides: “A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.” The statute requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.

Section 60-208(a) requires a pleading to give fair notice of the nature of the claim.

Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corporation · filed 1976-01-24(a)

Although the express warranty apparently was not attached to> plaintiff’s petition, nor included in the record on appeal, an express warranty was pled in paragraph five and breach thereof pled in paragraph seven of the original petition. This, we believe, satisfies the notice pleading requirements of K. S. A. 60-208 (a).

Section 60-208(a) requires a pleading to give a short and plain statement of the claim and the relief sought.

Rinsley v. Frydman · filed 1977-01-22(a)

That is, a pleading need only contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems himself or herself entitled.” (K. S. A. 60-208 [a]; and Malone v. University of Kansas Medical Center, 220 Kan. 371, 373, 552 P. 2d 885.) There is no requirement to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See 2A Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 8.13 [2d Ed. 1976].) All the rules require is a short and plain statement of a claim that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the ground upon which it rests. (Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 47, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99.)

Section 60-208(a) does not require a plaintiff to identify a legal theory if the pleaded facts give the defendant fair notice of the claim.

Knight v. Neodesha Police Department · filed 1980-10-10(a)

It is not necessary to spell out a legal theory for relief so long as an opponent is apprised of the facts that entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Waiver is an affirmative defense that the party raising it must prove; a court errs by raising it on its own initiative.

Harder v. Foster · filed 2017-07-28(c)(1)(Q)

Waiver is an affirmative defense under Kansas law. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(Q). ... Because waiver is an affirmative defense that must be proven by the party raising it, the district court erred when it raised the issue on its own initiative.

Section 60-208(c)(1)(Q) treats waiver as an affirmative defense that must be raised in an answer, another responsive pleading, or at trial.

Edwards v. Logan · filed 2018-05-25(c)(1)(Q)

By statute, waiver is an affirmative defense. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(Q). To properly assert an affirmative defense, such as waiver, the responsive party must set forth the defense in an answer, other responsive pleading, or at trial.

Section 60-208(c)(1)(P) requires a party to plead a statute of limitations defense.

Lewis v. State · filed 2018-08-24(c)(1)(P)

The bar of a statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional bar, but rather an affirmative defense which must be pled.

Section 60-208(c) requires defendants to plead affirmative defenses, including collateral estoppel, in their answer; a court may consider an unpleaded defense when the opposing party impliedly consents by addressing it at trial.

Hoffman v. City of Topeka · filed 2018-09-14(c)

Under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-208(c), collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense, and the statute requires defendants to set forth affirmative defenses in their answer to a plaintiff's petition. Failing to plead an affirmative defense amounts to a waiver of that defense. ... By addressing the defense at the bench trial, we find that the plaintiffs impliedly consented to the district court's application of the defense to the claim. ... We conclude the district court was not procedurally barred from addressing the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel in its decision.

Section 60-208(c)(1)(P) treats the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove.

Bouton v. Byers · filed 2014-03-14(c)(1)(P)

Byers argues he should prevail on summary judgment on an affirmative defense on which he would bear the burden of proof at trial. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60- 208(c)(1)(P) (statute of limitations is affirmative defense). In that posture, he must present uncontroverted facts showing Bouton's claim to be untimely.

Waiver must be asserted as an affirmative defense in an answer or other responsive pleading; an unasserted waiver defense will not be considered on appeal.

Smith v. Oliver Heights, LLC · filed 2013-09-06(c)(1)(Q)

Because waiver is an affirmative defense that a party must assert in an answer or other responsive pleading, we find that Oliver Heights failed to properly assert this affirmative defense before the district court, and, as such, we will not decide the issue of waiver on appeal.

Section 60-208(c) requires pleading matters constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense, but a sudden-emergency claim need not be pleaded separately when it merely denies negligence.

Herrington v. Pechin · filed 1967-03-04(c)

A claim of sudden emergency is but a denial of negligence and when the pleadings disclose that there was a mutual denial of negligence, the issue of sudden emergency is in the case without an affirmative allegation. Sudden emergency refutes negligence, it does not seek to avoid liability for a negligent act.

Section 60-208(c) requires waiver to be pleaded as an affirmative defense, but an unpleaded waiver issue may be tried when evidence on it is admitted without objection.

Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens · filed 1970-04-11(c)

It is true that waiver was not mentioned in plaintiff’s reply, and the defendants correctly call our attention to K. S. A. 60-208 (c) providing that waiver is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded. Our own cases also support this general proposition.

Section 60-208(c) requires accord and satisfaction to be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

Thompson v. Meyers · filed 1973-01-20(c)

Accord and satisfaction is an affirmative defense and, as such, it must be pleaded. (K. S. A. 60-208 [c].)

Section 60-208(c) requires affirmative defenses to be pleaded and permits a mislabeled defense or counterclaim to be treated according to its substance when justice requires.

Bessman v. Bessman · filed 1974-04-06(c)

That statute is clear authority for characterizing defendants’ pleading according to the facts alleged, regardless of the label placed on its individual parts by the pleader. It alleged facts amounting to fraud on plaintiff’s part, and put him on notice that fraud would be an issue in the case. We therefore hold that if plaintiff’s conduct alleged in the counterclaim could have been designated as a defense, it is proper to “treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation.”

Subsection (c) requires estoppel, as an affirmative defense, to be pleaded affirmatively.

Geis Irrigation Co. of Kansas, Inc. v. Satanta Feed Yards, Inc. · filed 1974-04-06(c)

Without going into the many ramifications of the testimony on this question, it is sufficient to state that estoppel is an affirmative defense and it must be set forth affirmatively. (K. S. A. 60-208 [c].) The appellants failed to plead estoppel as a defense.

Section 60-208(c) requires the statute-of-frauds defense to be raised in the trial court, and an unraised defense cannot be considered on appeal.

Timi v. Prescott State Bank · filed 1976-07-23(c)

Appellants' petition was framed on the theory of oral guaranty by the bank and Murrow that Mangum's checks would be honored and further that payment of Mangum's cattle purchases would be guaranteed (appellees did not at trial level raise the defense of the statute of frauds with respect to an oral promise to pay the debt of another [K.S.A. 33-106] as required by K.S.A. 60-208 [ c ] and it may not now be considered).

Section 60-208 requires defenses to be timely pleaded, so a party may not wait until after summary judgment to amend its pleadings to assert defenses first raised in a reply brief.

United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner · filed 1980-07-15

The instant case, however, can be clearly distinguished from the two foregoing cases, in that in those cases the motion to amend was made either prior to or at the time of the hearing on summary judgment. In the instant case the motion for summary judgment had been filed several months before the trial court entered its order in summary judgment. Furthermore, in the instant case, the parties agreed that the matter was “ripe” for summary judgment, and filed their motion to amend only after they learned of the unsatisfactory results of the summary judgment order. We conclude that the trial court was correct in concluding that appellant was barred by the pleading requirements of K.S.A. 60-208 and 60-209.

Subsection (c) requires a party to plead affirmative defenses and other matters constituting an avoidance or risk waiving them.

Unified School District No. 490 v. Celotex Corp. · filed 1981-05-29(c)

Although that argument is interesting, we cannot consider it; our answer is simply that Celotex did not raise that defense in the trial court, but tried the case on the theory that it was liable for Barrett's actions. The case was also argued to the jury on that theory. Having failed to raise the issue and having tried the case on the theory that it was liable for Barrett's actions, we are of the opinion Celotex waived that defense. K.S.A. 60-208( c ); 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1278 (1969).

Subsection (c) requires a party responding to a preceding pleading to set forth affirmative defenses.

O'DONNELL v. Fletcher · filed 1984-06-07(c)

Moreover, K.S.A. 60-208( c ) requires that in responding to a preceding pleading a party shall set forth the affirmative defense.

A defendant preserves an affirmative defense by pleading the facts constituting it and giving the opposing party fair notice; the defendant need not use the defense's legal label or fully explain its legal theory.

Turon State Bank v. Bozarth · filed 1984-07-13(c)

Kansas statutes provide affirmative defenses must be set forth in a responsive pleading or be deemed waived. See K.S.A. 60-208(c), which provides: ... “In pleading to a preceding pleading a party shall set forth affirmatively . . . estoppel . . . and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” ... It is not necessary, however, that a party thoroughly explain its legal theory for relief. ... These rules apply to a defendant’s pleading of an affirmative defense, such as in this case, as well as plaintiffs petition. ... The purpose of requiring a defendant to affirmatively plead estoppel is fairness. ... Thus, as long as defendant has pled the facts constituting the defense of estoppel, the failure to use the word “estoppel” in his answer is not conclusive. ... We hold the facts as alleged by Bozarth could be grounds for estoppel. This constitutes notice of the defense to the bank thus nullifying any possible unfairness.

Section 60-208(c) requires estoppel to be specially pleaded as an affirmative defense.

McClintock v. McCall · filed 1974-05-11(c)

K. S. A. 60-208 (c) lists estoppel as an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded.

Section 60-208(c) requires affirmative defenses such as estoppel and res judicata to be pleaded affirmatively; otherwise, they are waived.

Oehme v. Oehme · filed 1984-12-14(c)

But estoppel and res judicata are affirmative defenses and must be affirmatively pleaded. If not so pleaded, they are waived as a defense.

Section 60-208(c) requires matters constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense to be pleaded affirmatively, but K.S.A. 40-3117’s threshold requirements are not affirmative defenses.

Stang v. Caragianis · filed 1988-06-03(c)

We conclude the district court did not err in holding the threshold requirements: of K.S.A. 40-3117 are not affirmative defenses under K.S.A. 60-208(c).

Section 60-208(c) requires a defendant to raise expiration of the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in the first pleading filed with the court.

Hogue v. Johnson · filed 1999-07-30(c)

If service of process is obtained outside of the 90-day or 120-day time period provided for in K.S.A. 60-203(a), a defendant can raise the affirmative defense of expiration of the statute of limitations in the first pleading filed with the court. See K.S.A. 60-208(c).

Section 60-208(c) requires a defendant to plead and prove affirmative defenses.

Ternes v. GALICHIA · filed 2010-06-11(c)

Such defenses, according to K.S.A. 60-208(c), must be pled and proved by the defendant. In fact, unless the affirmative defense of statute of limitations is pled and proved, the court entertaining the matter should assume that a petition is timely commenced.

Section 60-208(c) requires a defendant to plead affirmative defenses in the answer.

Estate of Belden v. Brown County · filed 2011-08-26(c)

First, res judicata is an affirmative defense that must be pled in a defendant’s answer. K.S.A. 60-208(c). A defendant failing to assert an affirmative defense waives it.

Section 60-208(c) requires a defendant to plead a statute-of-limitations defense as an affirmative defense.

Kowalsky v. S & J Operating Company · filed 2013-10-30(c)

Defendants must plead an affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations. K.S.A. 60-208(c). Although S & J does not argue on appeal that the statute of limitations bars this suit, it did so in its first answer.

Section 60-208(c) requires a party to plead lack of consideration as an affirmative defense.

Garden National Bank v. Cada · filed 1986-12-18(c)

Lack of consideration must be pled as an affirmative defense.

Section 60-208(c) requires affirmative defenses to be pleaded.

In re the Estate of Tracy · filed 2006-08-18(c)

All affirmative defenses must be pled. K.S.A. 60-208(c).

Section 60-208(c) requires a statute of repose to be raised as an affirmative defense.

Baumann v. Excel Industries, Inc. · filed 1993-01-13(c)

While 60-513(b) is not a statute of limitation, a statute of repose would fall within the description in K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 60-208(c) of defenses which must be raised as affirmative defenses.

Section 60-208 requires a justification defense to tortious interference to be affirmatively pleaded.

Burrowwood Associates, Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp. · filed 1993-06-04

This defense to a tortious interference claim must be affirmatively pled.

Section 60-208(c) requires a statute-of-repose defense to be pled even though it is not among the listed affirmative defenses.

Patton v. Hutchinson Wil-Rich Manufacturing Co. · filed 1993-10-29(c)

Although not included ... in the listed affirmative defenses in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-208(c), the statute is an affirmative defense and must be pled.

Section 60-208(c) requires a party to plead a statute of limitations defense affirmatively; including it in an answer to an amended petition satisfies that pleading requirement.

King v. Pimentel · filed 1995-02-24(c)

K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-208(c) provides in part: “In pleading to a preceding pleading a party shall set forth affirmatively . . . statute of limitations.” Technically, the defendants complied with the applicable rules of civil procedure by including the affirmative defense based upon the statute of limitations in their answers to King’s third amended petition.

Section 60-208(c) requires a party to raise lack of consideration as an affirmative defense or waive it.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 1999-07-30(c)

Lack of consideration in a contract is an affirmative defense which must be raised, or it is waived. K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 60-208(c). We conclude that Elsie’s failure to raise this defense in the earlier action bars the defense of lack of consideration in this case.

Section 60-208(c) requires a party to affirmatively plead a statute of limitations defense.

In Re Tax Appeal of Trickett · filed 2000-06-16(c)

Under the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, a party must affirmatively plead a defense based upon statute of limitations. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 60-208(c). Although a court may raise jurisdiction issues on its own motion, the affirmative defense of statute of limitations must be raised by a party.

Section 60-208(c) requires equitable affirmative defenses, including waiver, estoppel, and laches, to be pleaded in the answer.

In Re the Marriage of Steven · filed 2002-06-28(c)

Bradley also argues the equitable doctrine of acquiescence, detrimental rebanee, waiver, estoppel, and laches bar Andrea from seeking the arrearage. Each of these equitable doctrines is an affirmative defense, which must be pled in the answer. See K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-208(c); 60-212(b). Bradley neither pled nor litigated these affirmative defenses in the trial court. He is barred from raising them for the first time on appeal.

Section 60-208(c) requires estoppel to be specifically pled as an affirmative defense or it is waived, including in workers compensation cases.

Coffman v. State · filed 2002-12-27(c)

Under the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, K.S.A. 60-101 et seq., estoppel is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pled or it is waived. See Turon State Bank v. Bozarth, 235 Kan. 786, 788, 684 P.2d 419 (1984); K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 60-208(c). With the exception of jurisdictional questions, affirmative defenses cannot be raised by the court, and consideration of such defenses constitutes error. Frontier Ditch Co. v. Chief Engineer of Div. of Water Resources, 237 Kan. 857, 864, 704 P.2d 12 (1985). We hold that this rule of law should be extended to workers compensation cases.

Section 60-208(c) requires the statute of limitations to be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer.

Smith v. Yell Bell Taxi, Inc. · filed 2003-09-12(c)

Pursuant to K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-208(c), the statute of limitations must be pled as an affirmative defense in the answer.

Section 60-208(c) requires an insurer to specifically plead a policy exclusion as an affirmative defense.

Evergreen Recycle, L.L.C. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2015-05-01(c)

An exclusion under an insurance policy is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pleaded.

Section 60-208(c) requires a defendant to set forth affirmative defenses in the answer.

Trevino v. Troutman · filed 2017-05-19(c)

Under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-208(c), affirmative defenses must be set forth in a defendant's answer.

Section 60-208(c)(1) does not require a party to plead specific performance as an affirmative defense.

Wise v. Bailey · filed 2017-06-16(c)(1)

Nor is specific performance listed in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-208(c)(1) as an affirmative defense that must be asserted in a responsive pleading.

A statute of limitations defense must be raised in a responsive pleading or answer.

Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Goldwyn · filed 2017-12-29(c)(1)(P)

By the clear language of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(P), a statute of limitations defense is an affirmative defense which must be raised by a defendant in a responsive pleading or answer.

Section 60-208(c)(1) requires a defendant to expressly plead affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations, waiver, and estoppel, in its answer.

Western Surety Co. v. T & L Zarda Investments · filed 2019-09-13(c)(1)

At this outset, it is important to recognize that the statute of limitations, waiver, and estoppel are affirmative defenses that must be expressly pled.

Section 60-208(c)(1)(P) requires a statute of limitations defense to be pleaded; a party that fails to assert it in district court waives it on appeal.

Baker v. State · filed 2019-12-20(c)(1)(P)

The bar of a statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional bar, but rather an affirmative defense which must be pled. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(P). ... We believe this reasoning is sound and we adopt it here. The State waived the time limit of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507(f)(1) by not asserting it earlier.

Laches is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a responsive pleading; an argument based on unreasonable delay can raise it without naming the doctrine.

In re Marriage of Lask · filed 2020-10-02(c)

Kathryn correctly points out that laches is an affirmative defense that is waived if not pled in a party's responsive pleading. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-208(c); In re Parentage of Shade, 34 Kan. App. 2d 895, 903-04, 126 P.3d 445 (2006). She suggests that Thomas waived this defense by failing to specifically cite the doctrine below. But in his response to Kathryn's motion for contempt, Thomas argued that her request for reimbursement was untimely due to her unreasonable delay. The district court rejected this argument, making explicit reference to the doctrine of laches. The issue was properly raised and addressed below.

Section 60-208(c) treats res judicata as an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional requirement.

In the Matter of Pretz · filed 2023-01-20(c)

Kansas treats res judicata as an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional requirement. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-208(c).

Section 60-208(c)(1) requires a defendant to assert affirmative defenses in an answer to avoid waiving them.

Todd v. Sedgwick County Emergency Medical Svcs. · filed 2025-01-24(c)(1)

But it is the responsibility of Defendants to assert an affirmative defense in their answer if they do not want to waive the defenses. In re Parentage of W.L. and G.L., 63 Kan. App. 2d 533, 541, 532 P.3d 447 (2023); see K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-208(c)(1).

Section 60-208(c) requires a party to affirmatively plead specified defenses and other matters constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.

Tabor v. Lederer · filed 1970-07-17(c)

K. S. A. 60-208 (c) provides that in pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively certain defenses which are expressly specified and “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Section 60-208(c) requires an affirmative defense such as laches to be pleaded.

Brooker v. Brooker · filed 1974-03-02(c)

Laches is an affirmative defense and must be pleaded (K. S. A. 60-208 [c]; Gard Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (1973 Cumulative Supp.), §60-208 [c]); since plaintiffs failed to raise it in their answer to defendants’ counterclaim or during the trial they are precluded from raising it for the first time on appeal.

Subsection (c) requires estoppel to be affirmatively pleaded as a defense.

Martin v. Hinnen · filed 1979-02-16(c)

We do note that estoppel was not affirmatively pleaded as a defense as required by K.S.A. 60-208(c), nor do we find evidence of any detrimental reliance.

Section 60-208(c) requires a party to plead affirmative defenses such as the statute of limitations.

Frontier Ditch Co. v. Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources · filed 1985-07-26(c)

K.S.A. 60-208(c) requires appellee plead all affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations. While the court may raise issues on its own motions, it is limited to issues of jurisdiction. Affirmative defenses, such as the statute of limitations, are not jurisdictional questions; thus, the issue was improperly raised by the court and constitutes error.

Section 60-208 permits simplified pleadings because the issues can be defined at the pretrial conference.

Bowen, Administrator v. Lewis · filed 1967-04-08

The trial court must try the case on the issues framed by the pleadings or defined at the pretrial conference. Although the pleadings do not have the importance under the new code that they did formerly, they still serve the very important purpose of informing the adverse party of the nature of the claim or defense asserted. The simplified pleading permitted by K. S. A. 60-208 is possible because the issues can be defined at the pretrial conference. Once the issues are defined and the court proceeds to render final judgment the parties are bound thereby.

Section 60-208(a) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Kelley v. Lee · filed 1969-12-06(a)

Applying the long established rule that a court looks through form to substance in measuring the sufficiency of allegations of a pleading we have no difficulty in concluding the initial petition sufficiently advised defendant of the facts upon which the claim for relief advanced by plaintiff arose, particularly under our new relaxed form of notice pleading which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief (K. S. A. 60-208 [a]).

Section 60-208 requires only a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for judgment; a petition need not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Nelson v. Miller · filed 1980-03-01

In this regard, it should be noted that K.S.A. 60-208 requires that a pleading contain only (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and, (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems himself or herself entitled. Under Kansas notice pleading, there is no requirement that a petition state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Section 60-208 requires a sufficient claim for relief to contain a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment.

Kennedy v. City of Sawyer · filed 1980-11-01

In pleading a matter all that is required by the statute to constitute a sufficient claim for relief is to give (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems himself or herself entitled. K.S.A. 60-208. See Collier v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 101, 228 Kan. 52, Syl. ¶ 7, 612 P.2d 150 (1980). In our present case the parties were brought into the case and the pleadings can be amended at the discretion of the trial court in the interest of justice to cover the issues to be decided.

Section 60-208(a) requires a petition to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Monroe v. Darr · filed 1974-04-06(a)

The federal view appears sound in principle because all that is required of a petition is that it contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief (K. S. A. 60-208 [a]) and, accordingly, we adopt that view.

Section 60-208 treats “cause of action” as technically synonymous with “claim for relief” under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Hutchinson National Bank & Trust Co. v. English · filed 1972-04-08

The term “cause of action” was used in the above case prior to the advent of the Code of Civil Procedure and is now technically the same as “claim for relief”. (See K. S. A. 60-208.) This statutory change in terminology was not always adhered to by those who drafted the code. (See K. S. A. 60-308 (b) referring to cause of action.) The two terms have, on occasion, been used interchangeably and will be, no doubt, in the future. Nevertheless we will attempt to use the term, claim for relief, in the context of the present statute.

Section 60-208 requires a pleading to state the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and include a demand for judgment.

Farmers State Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Yates Center · filed 1981-02-28

This would appear to set forth a statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment.

Section 60-208 requires a claim for relief to show that the pleader is entitled to relief and to demand judgment; a guarantor cannot show entitlement to subrogation before satisfying the guaranty.

Emprise Bank v. Rumisek · filed 2009-08-28

Likewise, K.S.A. 60-208 provides that a claim for relief consists of “(1) A short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems such pleader’s self entitled.” Until their obligations pursuant to the guaranties are satisfied, Benton and Rumisek cannot demonstrate an entitlement to relief.

Section 60-208(d)(2) permits alternative claims at the pleading stage even when the plaintiff cannot recover under both theories.

Kucharski-Berger v. Hill's Pet Nutrition · filed 2021-08-20(d)(2)

To apply this rule to a motion to dismiss on the pleadings would ignore Kansas pleading rules. "A party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-208(d)(2); Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 549, 438 P.2d 957 (1968) (finding a party will not be required to elect at the pleading stage of the case which legal theory relied on; this would defeat the purpose of allowing inconsistent pleading). Clearly, Kucharski-Berger cannot recover under both theories, but she can plead both at this early stage.

Section 60-208(d)(2) permits alternative claims or defenses in one pleading, which is sufficient if any alternative is sufficient.

Travelers Cas. Insurance v. Karns · filed 2021-09-17(d)(2)

Nor is there anything untoward about such a strategy as the dissent suggests. ... But a "party may set out two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-208(d)(2).

Section 60-208(d)(3) allows a party to assert separate claims or defenses even when they are inconsistent.

Pinaire v. Kitchens · filed 2016-06-24(d)(3)

However, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-208(d)(3) states: "A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency." Sharon is not prohibited from arguing the Trust is not contractual while also arguing defenses to contract formation.

Section 60-208(d)(3) permits a party to plead multiple theories of relief, including contradictory alternatives, at the outset of litigation.

Midwest Crane & Rigging v. Schneider · filed 2016-04-08(d)(3)

It is not necessary to wait to assert alternative theories of recovery, nor is it possible.

Section 60-208(e)(2) permits a party to plead inconsistent claims or defenses, including challenging a contract’s enforceability while counterclaiming for benefits under it.

St. Francis Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Weiss · filed 1994-03-04(e)(2)

K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-208(e)(2) states in pertinent part: “A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both.” ... In these circumstances, the doctrine of election of remedies, even in its current vestigial form, would have no application. We find no merit in St. Francis’ argument.

Subsection (e)(2) permits a plaintiff to plead multiple, alternative, or inconsistent claims and to shift theories as the facts develop.

Griffith v. Stout Remodeling, Inc. · filed 1976-04-10(e)(2)

“Under K. S. A. 60-208 (e) (2) a plaintiff may combine more than one cause of action, pleading in the alternative, regardless of consistency. He may allege or make contradictory or alternative statements until he finds out which theory, if any, the facts support, and is permitted to shift the theory as the facts develop.” (Syl. ¶ 5.)

Section 60-208(e)(2) permits a party to plead multiple claims or defenses, including inconsistent contract and tort theories, but requires choosing a definite theory before final submission to the factfinder.

Ware v. Christenberry · filed 1981-12-10(e)(2)

“Under K.S.A. 60-208(e)(2) a party may state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both.” ... Thus it appears that in an action for breach of an implied warranty a party may plead and proceed upon the theories of both contract and tort until the facts have been developed and the case is ready to be submitted to the trier of the facts. We garner from the recent cases and the authorities that one seeking to recover for breach of an implied warranty must eventually elect a definite theory before final submission to the trier of the facts.

Section 60-208(e)(2) permits a party to state alternative claims or defenses regardless of consistency.

Beams v. Werth · filed 1968-03-09(e)(2)

It is provided in K. S. A. 60-208 (e) (2) that a party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both. ... It is apparent adverse possession was alleged by the Werths as a second alternative defense, which in legal theory is inconsistent with the first defense alleged. This, however, under our present code pleading is proper.

Section 60-208(b) requires a general denial to be made in good faith and to fairly meet the substance of the opposing party’s averments; a partial denial must identify the part admitted and deny only the remainder.

Jolly v. Avery · filed 1976-11-06(b)

As Judge Gard notes in his Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, p. 33, the rule requires in substance that where a pleader denies generally, he must mean it. ... The answer, when read with the conflicting averments of the attached petition to change custody, did not constitute a specific denial of the material allegations of the petition.

Section 60-208 requires a party to plead facts sufficient to state a claim and to apprise the opponent of the facts entitling the plaintiff to relief, even though the legal theory need not be specified.

Febert v. Upland Mutual Insurance · filed 1977-04-09

A party is required to set forth facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (K. S. A. 60-208; Vernon’s K. S. A. Code of Civ. Proc., Authors’ Comments, Sec. 60-208.1, pp. 491-92.) While it is not necessary to spell out a legal theory for relief, it is necessary to apprise an opponent as to the facts which entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Section 60-208(e)(2) permits a party to seek inconsistent and alternative remedies in the same action.

Fuqua v. Hanson · filed 1977-07-11(e)(2)

The doctrine of estoppel does not prevent one from seeking inconsistent and alternative remedies in the same action for claims in the alternative are permitted by our code of civil procedure. (See K.S.A. 60-208[e] [2].)

Section 60-208(c)(1)(P) requires a defendant to plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.

LCL, LLC v. Falen · filed 2017-02-17(c)(1)(P)

Any allegation that a plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations must be pled by a defendant as an affirmative defense. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(P).

Section 60-208(c) treats the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and places the burden of pleading and proving its applicability on the defendant.

Gideon v. Gates · filed 1980-05-23(c)

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and the burden of pleading and proving its applicability rests on the defendant. K.S.A. 60-208( c ); Barnes v. Gideon, 1 Kan. App.2d 517, 518, 571 P.2d 42 (1977), rev'd on other grounds 224 Kan. 6, 578 P.2d 685 (1978).

Subsection (a) permits a petition to state a negligence claim when it alleges that the defendants negligently injured the plaintiff and attributes the officers’ negligence to the city.

Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita · filed 1983-01-20(a)

As we view Dauffenbach’s original petition, it states a cause of action for negligence under K.S.A. 60-208(a).

Subsection (c) makes the statute of limitations an affirmative defense, so an unasserted limitations defense does not prevent judgment and collection of the obligation.

State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Parrish · filed 1995-03-10(c)

Ordinarily, a statute of limitations creates an' affirmative defense and, if not pled and asserted as a defense, the obligation may still be subject to judgment and collection. K.S.A. 60-208(c).

Under § 60-208(c), waiver is an affirmative defense, and the party asserting it must prove it.

Lyons Ex Rel. Lawing v. Holder · filed 2007-07-20(c)

A claim of waiver is considered an affirmative defense under Kansas law. See K.S.A. 60-208(c). The party raising an affirmative defense such as waiver bears the burden of proving the defense. ... Accordingly, Lyons should have the burden of proof on the issue of waiver on remand.

Section 60-208(c) treats the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense that a defendant must plead and prove, or it is waived.

Mangus v. Stump · filed 2011-06-03(c)

In Kansas, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be proved and pled by a defendant or else the defense is waived.

Section 60-208(c) requires claim preclusion, also called res judicata, to be raised in a party's responsive pleading or it is waived.

Ferguson v. State · filed 2026-05-01(c)

Claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, is an affirmative defense that must be raised in a party's responsive pleading or is waived.

Section 60-208 requires the statute of limitations to be pleaded and proved as an affirmative defense by the party asserting it.

Sterling Drug, Inc., a Corporation v. Cornish · filed 1967-01-05

Under Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Kansas law, the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and proved by the asserting party. Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-208 (1965); Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 345 P.2d 1002 (1959); See Fisher v. Pendleton, 188 Kan. 221, 361 P.2d 864 (1961); Mayfield v. Hesston Mfg. Co., 187 Kan. 91, 353 P.2d 789 (1960) On this issue, appellant neither met its burden of proof, nor presented any evidence generating a fact question for the jury. The ruling of the trial court was not error.

Section 60-208(c)(1)(P) requires a responding party to assert the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in its pleading or waive it.

Lamar v. Lamar · filed 2019-02-15(c)(1)(P)

Under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(P), a party responding to a pleading must affirmatively assert the statute of limitations affirmative defense.

Section 60-208(c)(1)(P) treats the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead and prove.

Beichle v. Rohrbough · filed 2019-12-13(c)(1)(P)

Whether a plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(P). Therefore, the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving that a plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 60-208(a) authorizes the written statement of damages procedure addressed by Supreme Court Rule 118(a) and (b).

Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co. · filed 1983-06-10(a)

The last sentence of that rule, the only limitation on counsel’s argument, refers to a written statement of damages which may be requested by an adverse party under subsection (a) of the rule. The provisions of Rule 118(a) and (b) set forth the procedure to be followed in complying with K.S.A. 60-208(a) and apply only to the written statement of damages contemplated by Rule 118(a).

Section 60-208(e) calls for courts to construe pro se pleadings by their content, but does not require them to treat a motion repeatedly grounded in one statute as a motion under another.

State v. Brown · filed 2025-06-06(e)

As Brown notes, courts should liberally construe pro se pleadings based on their content and not solely on their title or labels "so as to do justice." K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 60-208(e); State v. Redding, 310 Kan. 15, 18, 444 P.3d 989 (2019). ... Given those circumstances, we will not now construe his motion as one under K.S.A. 60-1507.

Section 60-208 permits liberal, nontechnical pleading, including alternative or inconsistent theories, so a pleading need only fairly state facts showing entitlement to relief.

Oller v. Kincheloe's, Inc. · filed 1984-04-27(a), (e)(1)

Under K.S.A. 60-208, the pleader may allege or make contradictory or alternative statements until he finds out which theory, if any, the facts support, and is permitted to shift the theory as the facts develop. ... We have no hesitancy whatsoever in holding that the allegations of the plaintiff s petition were sufficient to raise issues of breach of implied warranties and of negligence and that the trial court erred in granting defendant Kincheloe’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 60-208(e) permits a party to plead alternate statements of a claim in one count or in separate counts.

Hoover Equipment Co. v. Smith · filed 1967-01-21(e)

The statute contemplates alternate statements of a' claim in either one count or in separate counts.

Section 60-208(e) requires pleadings to be construed to do justice, meaning courts read them liberally for substance over form without excusing compliance with procedural rules.

MidFirst Bank v. Sipple · filed 2026-02-20(e)

But liberal construction means only that an appellate court gives effect to the substance of the claims rather than the form. K.S.A. 60-208(e) ("Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice."); ... Even though an appellate court is obligated to construe a pro se pleading liberally to give effect to the substance rather than form, this liberal construction does not relieve a pro se litigant from complying with the applicable procedural rules.

Section 60-208 requires pleadings to be construed liberally.

Families Against Corporate Takeover v. Mitchell · filed 2000-03-10

Under K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 60-208, pleadings are to be given a liberal construction.

Section 60-208(f) requires courts to construe pleadings to do substantial justice, allowing a mislabeled petition to be treated according to the claim it states.

In Re the Estate of Heiman · filed 2010-10-15(f)

Second, the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that filings should be construed to effect their purpose, not in technical ways that thwart an airing of the parties’ underlying legal dispute.

When a defendant who is within the court's jurisdiction makes no appearance, the pleadings put nothing at issue except possibly facts needed for subject-matter jurisdiction and the amount of damages.

Automatic Feeder Co. v. Tobey · filed 1976-12-11(d)

The effect of the foregoing for present purposes is that if a defendant over whom jurisdiction has been obtained makes no appearance nothing is put in issue save possibly the facts needed to give the court jurisdiction over the subject matter and the amount of damages.

Section 60-208 requires a pleading to contain a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment for the relief sought.

Speer v. City of Dodge City · filed 1981-11-13

However, in pleading a matter, all that is required by statute to state a sufficient claim for relief is to give (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems himself to be entitled.

Section 60-208(d) treats allegations requiring a responsive pleading as admitted when they are not denied, except allegations about the amount of damages.

Diversified Financial Planners, Inc. v. Maderak · filed 1991-05-24(d)

Thus, by failing to deny the last payment was made within five years and not affirmatively setting forth a statute of limitations defense, the páyment was admitted.

Section 60-208(d) treats allegations that are not denied in an answer as admitted.

State Bank of Downs v. Moss · filed 1969-05-17(d)

The trial court correctly held that the allegations of paragraphs 7 and 8, not being denied, were admitted by virtue of K. S. A. 60-208 (d).

Section 60-208(a)(2) permits a pleading to state only that damages exceed $75,000 when no specific amount is demanded, but requires a specific amount when the damages sought are $75,000 or less.

Lafferty v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2020-11-16(a)(2)

In Kansas, a plaintiff may only generically assert damages exceeding $75,000 in lieu of a specific amount if he or she actually seeks damages exceeding $75,000. See K.S.A. § 60-208(a)(2) (“Except in contract actions, every pleading demanding relief for money damages in excess of $75,000, without demanding a specific amount of money, must state only that the amount of damages is in excess of $75,000.”). If plaintiff seeks damages in an amount of $75,000 or less, plaintiff must specify the amount of damages sought. See id. (“Every pleading demanding relief for money damages in an amount of $75,000 or less must specify the amount sought as damages.”).

Section 60-208 requires counterclaims and cross-claims to present coherent allegations that state a claim for relief, even when the pleader is self-represented.

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Scott-Jacobs · filed 2019-12-27

Maejean failed to comply with K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-208's pleading requirements and failed to state any counter or cross-claims upon which relief may be granted.

Section 60-208 requires a petition to give defendants notice of the allegations against them; conclusory and confusing allegations can warrant dismissal.

Myzer v. Baldwin · filed 2020-11-06(a)(1), (e)(1)

"A petition containing conclusory, rambling, and incoherent allegations defying reason or logic fails to comply with the requirements of" K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-208(a)(1) and (e)(1) and is subject to dismissal. Gatlin v. Hartley, Nicholson, Hartley & Arnett, P.A., 29 Kan. App. 2d 318, Syl. ¶ 3, 26 P.3d 1284 (2001). Here, we find the allegations contained in Myzer's petition to be both conclusory and confusing. Thus, we conclude that the petition did not adequately put the defendants on notice of the allegations against them and, as such, we find that it was appropriate for the district court to grant the motion to dismiss.

A petition must state facts showing entitlement to relief; a conclusory assertion that a claim is timely under a tolling statute does not suffice.

E.H. v. Kansas Dept. for Children and Families · filed 2021-09-10(a)

A petition must contain "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and "a demand for the relief sought." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-208(a). ... But E.H.'s statement that she filed her federal action within one year of turning 18 years old falls short of a well-pled fact. Her petition contains neither the date of her birth nor the date her federal complaint was filed—two dates easily accessible to her. Without those dates, the district court justifiably dismissed E.H.'s petition.

Section 60-208 permits a claim to be pleaded through factual allegations that give notice of the claim, even when the petition does not state it explicitly.

Fowler v. Criticare Home Health Services, Inc. · filed 2000-08-04

We are satisfied that Fowler sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for wrongful termination for whistle-blowing under 60-208 and the notice pleading policy it codifies.

Section 60-208(a)(1) requires a short, plain, understandable statement showing entitlement to relief; the court cannot supply an unstated claim by supposition.

McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs · filed 2001-12-07(a)(1)

“K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-208(a)(1) requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. ... The claim is to be provided by the petitioner and not by the supposition of the court.” ... In the absence of an understandable statement by McCormick that Long’s actions were outside the scope of her employment, we hold that Long is entitled to dismissal of the state tort law claims under the discretionary function exception to the KTCA.

Section 60-208(a) permits a petition alleging that accountants knowingly joined a trustee in overcharging a trust to survive a motion to dismiss when those allegations could support a breach-of-trust claim.

Gillespie v. Seymour · filed 1990-05-04(a)

Allegations that the Accountants knowingly joined the trustee and others in wrongfully obtaining trust funds in the form of overcharges, if true, would constitute a cause of action for breach of trust. The Beneficiaries’ petition is sufficient under K.S.A. 60-208(a) to withstand a motion to dismiss based on a breach of trust theory. The trial court erred in dismissing the third cause of action in counts three and four against the Accountants for conversion and conspiracy because the allegations, taken as true, could support a cause of action for breach of trust. Whether this cause of action can withstand a motion for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery is not for us to decide now.

Section 60-208 permits a pleader to allege contradictory or alternative statements and to shift theories as the facts develop, with an eventual election of a definite theory before final submission.

Noel v. Pizza Hut, Inc. · filed 1991-02-15

Under K.S.A. 60-208, the pleader may allege or make contradictory or alternative statements until he finds out which theory, if any, the facts support, and is permitted to shift the theory as the facts develop.

Section 60-208 requires a petition to state a short and plain claim for relief and demand the judgment sought, while allowing alternative or contradictory theories.

Thompson v. Phillips Pipe Line Co. · filed 1968-03-09(a), (e)(2)

Pursuant to K. S. A. 60-208 (a), the plaintiff’s petition must set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and a “demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.” Relief in the alternative, or of several different types may be demanded. The pleader may allege or make contradictory or alternative statements until he finds out which theory, if any, the facts support.

Subsection (b) permits a defendant to generally deny all averments except those expressly admitted.

Felix v. Turner Unified School District No. 202 · filed 1996-09-13(b)

K.S.A. 60-208(b) expressly allows the defendant ... to “generally deny all the averments except such designated averments or paragraphs as the pleader expressly admits.” While Turner could have specifically denied the agency relationship prior to its oral motion for directed verdict, Turner did' not admit that the agency relationship existéd.

Section 60-208 requires a petition to contain a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for judgment.

City of Andover v. Southwestern Bell Telepnone, L.P. · filed 2007-03-09

Rather, the petition need only contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment. K.S.A. 60-208. The pleadings must be sufficient to give the defendant “fair notice of what the plaintiff s claim is and the ground upon which it rests.”

Section 60-208 requires only a short and plain statement of the claim giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests; pleadings need not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Boydston v. Board of Regents · filed 1987-10-30

Under the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, there is no requirement that pleadings state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. ... Rather, the petition need only contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. ... The short and plain statement of a claim is sufficient if it gives the defendant “fair notice of what the plaintiff s claim is and the ground upon which it rests.” ... The statement of the law under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which is identical to K.S.A. 60-208) has been consistently cited with approval by the federal courts.

Section 60-208(c) requires a party to plead any matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense, but statutory damages caps are not such matters and need not be pleaded.

McGinnes v. Wesley Medical Center · filed 2010-01-29(c)

Second, we hold the statutory caps do not constitute an avoidance or affirmative defense. A defense is a defendant’s stated reason why the plaintiff has no valid case, and an affirmative defense is a defendant’s assertion of facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff s claim, even if all the allegations in the petition are true. See Black’s Law Dictionary 451 (8th ed. 2004). An avoidance (confession and avoidance) is a plea in which a defendant admits allegations but pleads additional facts that deprive the admitted facts of an adverse legal effect. See Black’s Law Dictionary 317 (8th ed. 2004). ... We conclude the trial court correctly determined statutory caps on damages do not have to be pled or raised at pretrial conference.

Section 60-208(b)(1) requires an answer to state defenses in short and plain terms and admit or deny the opposing party’s allegations; a lengthy narrative argument is procedurally improper.

Merryfield v. Kansas Dept. for Aging & Disability Svcs. · filed 2017-03-24(b)(1)

But the answer asserted neither affirmative defenses nor preserved defenses enumerated in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 60-212(b) and instead included a lengthy and procedurally improper narrative argument as to why injunctive relief would be unwarranted. See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-208(b)(1) (party answering pleading must "[s]tate in short and plain terms [his or her] defenses to each claim asserted . . . and . . . admit or deny the allegations asserted against [him or her] by an opposing party").

Section 60-208 requires a pleading to contain a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief sought, without requiring detailed allegations or citations to legal authority.

Thoroughbred Assoc. v. Kansas Royalty Co. · filed 2011-02-11

Rather, under K.S.A. 60-208, a pleading “shall contain ... [a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . and ... a demand for judgment for relief’ the pleader seeks on the claim. ... Kansas City’s counterclaim, as outlined in its responsive pleading to the second amended petition, satisfied that statutory requirement.

The section requires a pleading to state the claim and requested relief briefly and plainly and requires pleadings to be construed to do substantial justice.

Collier v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 101 · filed 1980-06-14(a), (f)

A proper pleading need only contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader deems himself or herself entitled. All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice. K.S.A. 60-208(o)and (f).

Section 60-208 permits alternative pleading and requires the listed affirmative defenses to be raised by answer.

Weaver v. Frazee · filed 1976-03-06(e)(2) and (c)

Under K. S. A. 60-208 (e) (2) plaintiff could have combined both causes of action in one suit, pleading in the alternative, regardless of consistency. ... It may be well to note here that the statute of limitations, res judicata, and estoppel are all, under K. S. A. 60-208 (c), affirmative defenses which must be raised by answer.

K.S.A. 60-208 does not require pleading a precise cause of action and requires pleadings to give notice and receive liberal construction.

In Re Estate of Moe · filed 1986-05-15

Under the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, the pleading of a precise cause of action is not required. The real function of pleading is to give notice, and in line with the concept of notice pleading, pleadings are given liberal construction under the code.

Section 60-208 requires a short, plain statement of the claim and simple, concise, direct allegations; a petition that fails to meet those requirements may be dismissed.

Gatlin v. Hartley, Nicholson, Hartley & Arnett, P.A. · filed 2001-06-15(a)(1), (e)(1)

Those pleadings contained conclusoiy, rambling, and incoherent allegations defying reason or logic. The plaintiff s failure to reasonably meet the liberal dictates of K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-208(a)(l) and (e)(1) also justifies the district court’s dismissal of the underlying lawsuit.

Section 60-208(a) requires a plaintiff to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for appropriate relief, without having to categorize causes of action or cite the legal bases for the suit.

Golden v. Den-Mat Corp. · filed 2012-05-04(a)

But a plaintiff is not required to categorize causes of action or cite statutory or common-law bases for the suit. ... A plaintiff must simply set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” coupled with a demand for appropriate relief. K.S.A. 60-208(a). ... Those allegations satisfy the notice requirements of an opening pleading. The legal theories may, but need not, be expressly identified in the petition; they can be fleshed out during the discovery process.

Section 60-208(a) requires a petition to outline the nature of the claim and the facts supporting relief, but does not initially require a precise cause of action.

Classico, LLC v. United Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2016-12-16(a)

In other words, at least initially, a plaintiff is not required to plead precise causes of action so long as the petition outlines the nature of the claims and informs the opposing party of the facts that entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Section 60-208(a) requires a petition to state the claim briefly, show entitlement to relief, and describe the relief sought.

Rogers v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-06-07(a)

As we have indicated, K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-208(a) requires a petition to include a "short and plain statement" showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief and a description of the relief sought.

Section 60-208(a) requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and a demand for judgment.

Doe v. M.J. · filed 2022-04-22(a)

With the advent of the rules of civil procedure, a pleading requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for judgment.

Subsections (b) and (c) require defenses and issues to be presented by answer before summary judgment resolves them.

Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation · filed 1969-04-12(b), (c)

Under the posture of these cases at the time motions for summary judgment were filed the cases were not ripe for summary judgments. The attack upon the petitions is not because of insufficiency of their allegations. Defendants were attempting to present and resolve issues which should have been presented by answer. (See K. S. A. 60-208 (b) and (c).)

Section 60-208(d) treats petition allegations as admitted when not denied in a responsive pleading, while subsection (c) requires affirmative defenses to be stated in the answer or they are waived.

Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Emmanuel Church of God in Christ · filed 2012-06-08(d), (c)

Furthermore, all of the allegations set forth in a petition “are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading.” K.S.A. 60-208(d). ... Under K.S.A. 60-208(c), affirmative defenses must be set forth in a defendant’s answer. If an affirmative defense is not asserted in an answer, it is waived.

Section 60-208(c) requires an affirmative defense such as claim preclusion to be pleaded, or the defense is waived.

Kansas Health Care Stabilization Fund v. St. Francis Hospital · filed 2009-03-20(c)

The argument is that whatever preclusive effect there may have been by virtue of the dismissal, there was no affirmative defense raised on this basis by St. Francis/Via Christi in the second Bower case. See K.S.A. 60-208(c). Absent any such pleading, the defense was waived. ... We agree with this assertion and therefore conclude that the negligence claim was not precluded as a matter of law from being asserted in the second Brower litigation.

A party waives collateral estoppel by failing to raise it in a responsive pleading or otherwise before judgment.

In re the Marriage of Vargas · filed 1994-11-10(c)

A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as other parties and is required to follow the same rules of procedure as a party represented by counsel. Mangiaracina v. Gutierrez, 11 Kan. App. 2d 594, 595, 730 P.2d 1109 (1986). Since Carol failed to raise this issue in a responsive pleading or in any manner prior to the court’s judgment, this matter is deemed waived.

Section 60-208(c) requires affirmative defenses to be raised in an answer or other responsive pleading; a defense first raised after the verdict is waived.

Tonn Family Ltd Ag. Ptnshp. v. Western Ag. Ins. Co. · filed 2021-03-19(c)

As the parties are aware, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-208(c) requires that all affirmative defenses be raised in an answer or other responsive pleading. ... Thus, we conclude that Western Ag has waived this policy defense by failing to raise it until after the jury had returned its verdict.

Section 60-208(c)(1)(O) requires a party to plead the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense or waive it.

Savage v. Timsah · filed 2025-02-07(c)(1)(O)

First, "[i]n responding to a pleading," Timsah must have "affirmatively state[d] any avoidance or affirmative defense," including the statute of frauds. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-208(c)(1)(O). Timsah did not raise this affirmative defense in her responsive pleading, nor has she cited anywhere in the record where she raised this argument to the district court. She has thus waived it.