Buchanan v. Overley

I respectfully disagree with my colleagues in their conclusion that Douglas Buchanan faded to comply with the requirements of K.S.A. 60-1102 by not verifying his address sufficient for service of process.

Examining the hen statement itself, there is no question that the “address sufficient for service of process of the claimant” is present at least 21 times on the attachments referenced as Exhibit A and “made a part of [the hen] statement.” Jerry and Carol Overley concede as much but argue that Buchanan failed “to include his address on the face of the hen statement” and failed to verify the…