Legal Opinion

O'Malley v. Frazier

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided November 16, 2001No. 86,620PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Paddock, J.:

In an action to collect on a past-due note once barred by the statute of limitations, the district court ruled circumstances under which part payment was made revived only the principal obligation of the promissory note, but not the obligation to pay interest. Creditor Phillip H. O’Malley appeals, claiming it was error to only revive the principal term of the note. In addition, the debtors, Ronald L. and Kathryn A. Frazier, cross-appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in reviving the principal portion of the note.

On May 24,1984, in consideration of a loan of $27,000 made to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dougan v. Rossville Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Kansas · 2000
  2. Kilner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1993
  3. Jarnagin v. DitusSupreme Court of Kansas · 1967
  4. Hustead v. Bendix Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1983
  5. Fisher v. PendletonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1959

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. O'MALLEY v. FrazierSupreme Court of Kansas · 2002
  2. O'MALLEY v. FrazierSupreme Court of Kansas · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API