{"meta":{"key":"s_ks--pass-16","task":"S_KS","title":"Two bounded remedies precision corrections","parent_title":"Kansas debt and debt relief law","edition":"pass-16","path":"/research/s_ks--pass-16/","kind":"split_pass","category":"state","role":"state","area_numbers":[66],"groups":["collections"],"date":"2026-10-26","tables":6,"claims":8,"sources":9,"review_status":"two_targeted_groups_resolved_with_limits","review_complete":true,"sha256":"327f164a8c5fd25ba3582418e067732fbcfd032a698a8d4df305a0c4d95905cd","headings":["Two bounded PASS-06 remedies precision corrections","1. Complete two-group disposition","2. Replacement for PASS-06 B1","B1. Operative rule — corrected","3. Replacement B2 table","4. Bounded unpaid-fee example","Example P16-E01 — unauthorized charge imposed but unpaid","5. Replacement for PASS-06 D2","D2. Punitive damages — corrected","Correct subsection-(e) formula","Correct subsection-(f) formula","Cap versus entitlement and actual award","6. Replacement punitive rows for the PASS-06 G table","7. Replacement J10 follow-up and two bounded calculations","Original J10 ordinary branch remains correct","Example P16-E02 — net-worth substitution with continuing $5 million ceiling","Example P16-E03 — subsection-(f) profit alternative"],"generation_provenance":{"actual_route":"regular_chat_adaptive_models","actual_model":"GPT-5.6 Sol","actual_mode":"Pro","provenance_limit":"Actual documented capture labels only; missing labels remain unknown. No preferred setting is inferred as actual execution."},"public_id":"S_KS/pass-16","facets":{"geography":["us","us-ks"],"debt_type":[],"stage":["repossession"],"subject":[]},"scope":"Two reviewed P6 precision groups: imposition/receipt and punitivecap nesting","pending_corrections":0},"markdown":"# SettleADebt.com — S_KS, PASS-16\n\n## Two bounded PASS-06 remedies precision corrections\n\n**Fresh targeted research date:** October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC\n**Character:** Same-coordinator bounded correction; **not an independent review**. All supported PASS-06 findings, examples, arithmetic, source history, and unresolved holds remain preserved except for the cells expressly replaced below.\n\n## 1. Complete two-group disposition\n\n| Correction group | Affected PASS-06 cells | Disposition |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **1. Unauthorized imposition versus receipt** | B1; affected B2 rows; route/amount matrix; S_KS-P6-C004; unauthorized-charge and unauthorized-amount coverage rows; Example J1/J2 qualification | K.S.A. 50-1126(e) is triggered when a licensee **imposes** an unauthorized fee or charge **or receives** unauthorized funds or payments, absent accidental and bona fide error. Receipt is not the exclusive trigger. An unpaid imposed charge can trigger statutory voidness, but no cash refund amount can be calculated where the consumer paid and the licensee received $0. |\n| **2. Punitive-cap nesting** | D2; punitive rows in the G amount/status table; S_KS-P6-C022; J10 follow-up; punitive-cap coverage rows | Under subsection (e), the income measure—or 50% of net worth after the required inadequacy finding—remains subject to the separate **$5 million lesser-of ceiling**. Subsection (f), when its profitability finding is made, applies **in lieu of subsection (e)** and replaces the entire subsection-(e) ceiling with a cap equal to 1.5 times actual or expected misconduct profit. |\n\n# Group 1 — K.S.A. 50-1126(e): unauthorized imposition **or** receipt\n\n## 2. Replacement for PASS-06 B1\n\n### B1. Operative rule — corrected\n\nK.S.A. 50-1126(e) contains two disjunctive trigger branches. Absent an accidental and bona fide error, the subsection applies when a licensee:\n\n1. **Imposes** a fee or other charge not authorized by K.S.A. 50-1126; **or**\n2. **Receives** funds or other payments not authorized by K.S.A. 50-1126.\n\nWhen either trigger is established:\n\n- The debt-management-services agreement is void; and\n- The licensee must return the amount of the unauthorized fees, charges, funds, or payments to the consumer. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/)\n\nThe prior PASS-06 formulation incorrectly narrowed the trigger to unauthorized amounts that the licensee **received**. Actual receipt is not required for the agreement-voiding branch where the licensee has already **imposed** an unauthorized fee or charge.\n\nThe two consequences nevertheless require separate treatment:\n\n- **Voidness:** An unauthorized fee or charge can trigger voidness when imposed, even if it has not yet been paid.\n- **Return:** A cash-return amount depends on what the consumer actually paid or what the licensee actually received. Where an unauthorized charge was imposed but remains wholly unpaid, there is no paid or received cash amount to refund on those facts. The subsection does not expressly prescribe whether the unpaid line item must be canceled, reversed, credited, or removed through a particular accounting method.\n\nThe subsection itself does not require punitive intent, knowledge, reliance, or a particular amount of private damages as elements of its voidness-and-return rule. A separate private damages claim under K.S.A. 50-1133 still requires a consumer **injured by** a violation. [Kansas Legislature+1](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/)\n\nIt also remains unresolved under the public authority reviewed:\n\n- Who bears the burden of proving the accidental-and-bona-fide-error qualification.\n- What facts satisfy “accidental” and “bona fide.”\n- Whether a legal mistake can qualify.\n- Whether prompt reversal or repayment constitutes a cure.\n- Whether an excepted error leaves the charge lawful.\n- Whether the exception affects only subsection (e)’s void-and-return consequences or also other statutory routes.\n\nNo responsive published Kansas appellate decision construing those questions was located in the bounded searches performed for this correction.\n\n## 3. Replacement B2 table\n\n| Question | Corrected PASS-16 result |\n| --- | --- |\n| **What triggers K.S.A. 50-1126(e)?** | Either the unauthorized **imposition** of a fee or charge or the unauthorized **receipt** of funds or payments, absent accidental and bona fide error. |\n| **Can an unpaid imposed fee trigger the subsection?** | **Yes.** Imposition is an independent textual trigger for agreement voidness. |\n| **Does an unpaid imposed fee generate a cash refund?** | No cash refund amount can be calculated where the consumer paid and the licensee received $0. The statute does not expressly specify the accounting treatment of the unpaid line item. |\n| **Does the subsection direct return of an unauthorized amount actually paid or received?** | **Yes**, absent accidental and bona fide error. |\n| **Does it make the agreement void?** | **Yes**, when either textual trigger is established and the error qualification does not apply. |\n| **Does the subsection itself award attorney fees?** | **No.** |\n| **Does the subsection itself award punitive damages?** | **No.** |\n| **Does it state a standalone private cause of action?** | **Not expressly.** Direct KCSOA, KCPA, declaratory, injunctive, administrative, and other possible routes each retain their own predicates. |\n| **Does later reversal or repayment erase the violation?** | Not stated. |\n| **Does accidental bona fide error make the fee affirmatively lawful?** | Not stated. |\n| **Does the statute provide a general cure period?** | No express cure period appears in subsection (e). |\n| **Is every dollar paid under the agreement automatically unauthorized?** | No. The disputed fee, charge, fund, or payment must be classified under K.S.A. 50-1126. |\n| **Is a returned amount automatically cumulative with compensatory damages for the same dollar?** | No automatic duplicate recovery is established. Offset, election, and judgment-structure questions remain held. |\n\nThe corrected trigger and consequences follow directly from the complete current subsection. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/)\n\n## 4. Bounded unpaid-fee example\n\n### Example P16-E01 — unauthorized charge imposed but unpaid\n\n**Express assumptions**\n\n- The actor is a covered Kansas licensee.\n- The licensee imposes a **$300** fee not authorized by K.S.A. 50-1126.\n- The consumer pays **$0** of that fee.\n- The licensee receives **$0**.\n- The imposition was not the result of an accidental and bona fide error.\n- No separate injury, reliance, damages, KCPA remedy, or administrative order is assumed.\n\n**Statutory application**\n\nPlain text\n```\nUnauthorized fee imposed                     $300\nAmount paid by consumer                         0\nAmount received by licensee                     0\nCash amount available to return under\nthe stated facts                               $0\nAgreement status under §50-1126(e)(1)         Void\n```\n\nThe $300 imposition can trigger voidness even though no money was received. The example does **not** infer a $300 cash refund, compensatory-damages award, civil penalty, attorney-fee award, or punitive award. The statute does not expressly identify the bookkeeping action required for the unpaid $300 entry. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/)\n\nOriginal PASS-06 Examples J1 and J2 remain unchanged because both already assumed an amount was actually paid or charged in a manner producing the stated return arithmetic. Their existing bona-fide-error, causation, offset, and private-remedy limitations remain preserved.\n\n# Group 2 — K.S.A. 60-3702(e) and (f): punitive-cap nesting\n\n## 5. Replacement for PASS-06 D2\n\n### D2. Punitive damages — corrected\n\nK.S.A. 50-1133(b) permits punitive damages but does not make them automatic. K.S.A. 60-3702 supplies the general Kansas entitlement, procedure, findings, and maximum-award structure:\n\n1. The trier of fact decides whether punitive damages will be allowed.\n2. Clear and convincing evidence must establish willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice.\n3. If punitive damages are allowed, the court conducts a separate amount proceeding.\n4. The court may consider the statutory factors in subsection (b).\n5. Principal, employer, association, partnership, and corporate liability for another person’s conduct remains subject to subsection (d)’s authorization-or-ratification requirements.\n6. The court then applies subsection (e), unless subsection (f)’s profitability branch is established. [Kansas Legislature+1](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/)\n\n### Correct subsection-(e) formula\n\nDefine:\n\nPlain text\n```\nI = defendant’s highest gross annual income\n    for any one of the five years immediately\n    before the act\n\nN = defendant’s net worth\n\nE1 = subsection (e)(1) measure\nLe = complete subsection (e) ceiling\n```\n\nIf the court does **not** find I clearly inadequate to penalize the defendant:\n\nPlain text\n```\nE1 = I\nLe = min(I, $5,000,000)\n```\n\nIf the court expressly finds I clearly inadequate:\n\nPlain text\n```\nE1 = 50% × N\nLe = min(50% × N, $5,000,000)\n```\n\nThe net-worth language substitutes a new measure inside paragraph (e)(1). It does **not** remove paragraph (e)(2). The complete subsection-(e) cap remains the lesser of the applicable paragraph-(1) measure and $5 million. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/)\n\nThe U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas applied that nesting directly in *Scheufler v. General Host Corp.*: both the defendant’s annual income and one-half of its net worth exceeded $5 million, so the court treated $5 million as the applicable subsection-(e) ceiling. That is persuasive federal authority applying Kansas law, not a Kansas Supreme Court holding squarely devoted to the net-worth nesting question. The Tenth Circuit later affirmed the $550,000 punitive award but did not separately decide that formula issue. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/)\n\n### Correct subsection-(f) formula\n\nDefine:\n\nPlain text\n```\nP = profit the defendant gained or is expected\n    to gain from the misconduct\n```\n\nAfter determining the applicable subsection-(e) limitation Le, subsection (f) becomes available only if the court finds:\n\nPlain text\n```\nP > Le\n```\n\nThe statutory text says “exceeds or is expected to exceed”; equality alone does not satisfy the stated trigger.\n\nIf that finding is made:\n\nPlain text\n```\nLf = 1.5 × P\n```\n\nSubsection (f) applies **in lieu of** subsection (e). Thus:\n\n- The annual-income ceiling no longer governs.\n- The 50%-of-net-worth ceiling no longer governs.\n- The $5 million paragraph-(e)(2) ceiling no longer governs.\n\nThe subsection-(f) maximum is instead 1.5 times the misconduct profit the court finds was gained or expected. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/)\n\nKansas Supreme Court authority construing the materially identical predecessor profitability language requires sufficient findings to establish the subsection-(e) limitation, the misconduct profit, and the basis for invoking subsection (f). The court rejected an unexplained punitive award where the district court had not shown how it computed profit or the alternative ceiling. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html)\n\n“Profit” is not automatically:\n\n- Compensatory damages.\n- Gross receipts.\n- The amount paid by the consumer.\n- The face value of enrolled debt.\n- The total amount of challenged fees.\n\nActual or expected misconduct profit must be found from evidence attributable to the misconduct.\n\n### Cap versus entitlement and actual award\n\nEvery formula above establishes only a statutory **maximum**. It does not establish:\n\n- Entitlement to any punitive award.\n- An award equal to the cap.\n- Authorization or ratification by an entity.\n- That a particular defendant has the assumed income, net worth, or profit.\n- Compliance with constitutional due-process limits.\n- The effect of other claim-specific statutory limitations.\n- The final interaction between K.S.A. 50-1133(b) and every procedural or constitutional issue.\n\nKansas authority confirms that punitive damages remain discretionary even after qualifying conduct has been established. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html)\n\nNo current KCSOA appellate decision was located applying the net-worth or profit branches to a K.S.A. 50-1133 claim.\n\n## 6. Replacement punitive rows for the PASS-06 G table\n\n| Remedy or limitation | Correct formula or ceiling | Required findings | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Ordinary subsection-(e) cap — income branch** | min(I, $5,000,000) | Court determines highest gross annual income in the five-year lookback; no clearly-inadequate finding | Maximum only; award remains discretionary |\n| **Subsection-(e) cap — net-worth substitution** | min(0.50 × N, $5,000,000) | Court expressly finds the income measure clearly inadequate and determines net worth | Paragraph (e)(2)’s $5 million ceiling continues to apply |\n| **Subsection-(f) profit alternative** | 1.5 × P | Court first determines the subsection-(e) limitation, then finds misconduct profit exceeds or is expected to exceed it, and determines actual or expected profit | Applies **in lieu of** subsection (e); the $5 million subsection-(e) ceiling does not continue |\n| **Actual punitive award** | 0 ≤ award ≤ applicable cap | Entitlement, clear-and-convincing culpability, amount proceeding, statutory factors, entity attribution where applicable | No presumption that the court awards the maximum |\n\nThe current statutory formulas appear in K.S.A. 60-3702(a)–(f). [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/)\n\n## 7. Replacement J10 follow-up and two bounded calculations\n\n### Original J10 ordinary branch remains correct\n\nThe original assumptions were:\n\nPlain text\n```\nHighest annual gross income             $2,000,000\nFixed comparison                        $5,000,000\nNo clearly-inadequate finding\nProfit branch not triggered\n```\n\nThe ordinary subsection-(e) cap remains:\n\nPlain text\n```\nmin($2,000,000, $5,000,000)\n= $2,000,000\n```\n\nThat original arithmetic is unchanged.\n\n### Example P16-E02 — net-worth substitution with continuing $5 million ceiling\n\n**Additional assumptions**\n\n- Punitive damages have been permitted.\n- The court determines the income measure of $2 million is clearly inadequate.\n- The court determines net worth is $12 million.\n- Subsection (f) is not triggered.\n- No other statutory or constitutional limit is calculated.\n\nPlain text\n```\nNet worth                                  $12,000,000\n50% of net worth                             6,000,000\nParagraph (e)(2) ceiling                     5,000,000\n\nSubsection-(e) maximum:\nmin($6,000,000, $5,000,000)                $5,000,000\n```\n\nThe net-worth substitution does **not** produce a $6 million statutory ceiling because paragraph (e)(2) continues to cap subsection (e) at $5 million. The court may award less than $5 million. [Kansas Legislature+1](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/)\n\n### Example P16-E03 — subsection-(f) profit alternative\n\n**Express assumptions**\n\n- The court has correctly computed the complete subsection-(e) limitation as $5 million.\n- The court finds the defendant gained or expected to gain **$8 million** from the misconduct.\n- The court makes sufficient findings connecting that profit to the misconduct.\n- Punitive entitlement and all other predicates are satisfied.\n\n**Trigger**\n\nPlain text\n```\nMisconduct profit                         $8,000,000\nSubsection-(e) limitation                  5,000,000\n\n$8,000,000 > $5,000,000\nTherefore subsection (f) is triggered.\n```\n\n**Alternative ceiling**\n\nPlain text\n```\n1.5 × $8,000,000\n= $12,000,000\n```\n\nBecause subsection (f) applies **in lieu of** subsection (e), the $5 million subsection-(e) ceiling does not remain as an additional cap in this branch. The result is a statutory maximum of $12 million on the assumptions—not an entitlement to, prediction of, or required award of $12 million. [Kansas Legislature+1](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/)\n\n# 8. Corrected claim cells\n\n| PASS-16 claim ID | Mapped PASS-06 ID | Replacement claim | Sources and pinpoints | Conditions, consequence, and confidence |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_KS-P16-C001** | Replaces S_KS-P6-C004 | K.S.A. 50-1126(e) is triggered when a licensee either imposes an unauthorized fee or charge **or** receives unauthorized funds or payments, absent accidental and bona fide error. The agreement is then void, and unauthorized amounts received or paid are subject to return. | S_KS-P16-S001, K.S.A. 50-1126(e)(1)–(2). [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/) | **High textual confidence.** Actual licensee status, authorization, imposition, receipt, and error facts remain unprovided. |\n| **S_KS-P16-C002** | New clarification to C004 | An unpaid imposed fee can trigger agreement voidness, but where the consumer paid and the licensee received $0, no cash-refund amount is established. The statute does not expressly specify how the unpaid accounting entry must be reversed or removed. | S_KS-P16-S001, §50-1126(e). [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/) | **High as a bounded distinction;** bookkeeping remedy unresolved. |\n| **S_KS-P16-C003** | Preserves S_KS-P6-C005 | Section 50-1126(e) states no express cure period, burden-allocation rule, or detailed bona-fide-error test. | S_KS-P16-S001, §50-1126(e). [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/) | **High bounded reading; interpretation unresolved.** |\n| **S_KS-P16-C004** | Preserves S_KS-P6-C006 | Section 50-1126(e) does not itself award attorney fees, punitive damages, or a civil penalty. | S_KS-P16-S001; separate private remedy in S_KS-P16-S002. [Kansas Legislature+1](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/) | **High.** |\n| **S_KS-P16-C005** | Replaces/qualifies S_KS-P6-C022 | Punitive damages under K.S.A. 50-1133(b) are permitted but not automatic; entitlement and amount remain governed by the applicable K.S.A. 60-3702 predicates and discretion. | S_KS-P16-S002, §50-1133(b); S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(a)–(d); S_KS-P16-S008. [Kansas Legislature+2](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/) | **High.** |\n| **S_KS-P16-C006** | New correction to punitive-cap coverage | After a clearly-inadequate-income finding, 50% of net worth substitutes for the income measure in §60-3702(e)(1), but §60-3702(e)(2)’s $5 million ceiling continues. The complete subsection-(e) cap is min(50% of net worth, $5 million). | S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(e); S_KS-P16-S004; persuasive S_KS-P16-S005. [Kansas Legislature+2](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/) | **High textual confidence;** no Kansas appellate case located squarely applying the net-worth substitution facts. |\n| **S_KS-P16-C007** | New correction to punitive-cap coverage | If the court finds misconduct profit exceeds or is expected to exceed the complete subsection-(e) limitation, §60-3702(f) applies in lieu of subsection (e), and the statutory cap becomes 1.5 times actual or expected misconduct profit. | S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(f); S_KS-P16-S006 and S007. [Kansas Legislature+2](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/) | **High.** Sufficient findings of the subsection-(e) limit and misconduct profit are required. |\n| **S_KS-P16-C008** | New | The subsection-(f) profit branch does not carry forward subsection-(e)’s income, net-worth, or $5 million caps, but the actual award remains discretionary and subject to all other applicable constraints. | S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(a)–(f); S_KS-P16-S006; S_KS-P16-S008. [Kansas Legislature+2](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/) | **High for statutory nesting; constitutional and KCSOA-specific application remain open.** |\n\n# 9. Corrected coverage cells\n\n| PASS-06 coverage item | Corrected status | Corrected claim IDs | Exact remaining evidence or next action |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **Unauthorized-charge voidness** | **Answered at statutory-trigger level** | C001–C002 | Determine actual licensee coverage, fee authorization, imposition event, receipt, and error facts. |\n| **Unauthorized amount calculation** | **Partial** | C001–C002 | Separate amount imposed, amount paid, amount received, accounting reversal, and any offsets. |\n| **Unpaid unauthorized fee** | **Answered only for trigger/cash-return distinction** | C002 | No statutory accounting remedy or private-damages result established. |\n| **Bona-fide-error standard and burden** | **Unresolved** | C003 | Controlling case, formal OSBC interpretation, or order. |\n| **Cure or immunity from later reversal/refund** | **Unresolved** | C003 | No express cure provision located. |\n| **Standalone private enforcement of §50-1126(e)** | **Partial/unresolved** | C004 plus preserved PASS-06 private-remedy claims | Cause-of-action, injury, causation, offset, and limitations authority. |\n| **Punitive entitlement** | **Answered at rule level** | C005 | Actual clear-and-convincing evidence, entity authorization/ratification, and trier findings. |\n| **Ordinary subsection-(e) cap** | **Answered** | C006 | Actual income, inadequacy finding, net worth, and separate-case treatment. |\n| **Net-worth substitution nesting** | **Answered** | C006 | Factual net worth and inadequacy finding remain absent. |\n| **Profit alternative** | **Answered at formula level** | C007–C008 | Actual misconduct profit and sufficient findings. |\n| **KCSOA-specific punitive-cap case law** | **Unresolved** | C005–C008 | No current KCSOA appellate application located. |\n| **Constitutional or other independent punitive limits** | **Excluded except preserved boundary** | C008 | Separate due-process and claim-specific analysis. |\n| **Actual punitive award** | **Not determined** | C005–C008 | Entitlement, evidence, discretion, and actual defendant financial facts. |\n\n# 10. PASS-16 source-access register\n\n| Source ID | Title, issuer, and full literal URL | Exact read scope and pinpoint | Access, version, status, and limits |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_KS-P16-S001** | Kansas Revisor, **K.S.A. 50-1126 — Fees charged by licensee; when allowed** https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/ | Complete current subsections **(a)–(e)**; correction centers on subsection **(e)(1)–(2)** at HTML line 60. No printed page or PDF index. | **Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC.** Official page labeled 2026 Kansas Statutes. Website update timestamp is not an enactment date or complete amendment audit. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S002** | Kansas Revisor, **K.S.A. 50-1133 — Private remedies** https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/ | Complete subsections **(a)–(b)** at HTML line 57. No printed page or PDF index. | **Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC.** Used only to preserve injury, amount-paid floor, fees/costs, and discretionary-punitive boundaries. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S003** | Kansas Revisor, **K.S.A. 60-3702 — Punitive and exemplary damages** https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/ | Complete current subsections **(a)–(h)**; subsection (e)(1)–(2) and subsection (f) at HTML line 58. No printed page or PDF index. | **Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC.** Current official statute. History line identifies 1988 enactment and 1992 amendment; no full history audit. [Kansas Legislature](https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S004** | **Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. ONEOK, Inc.**, Kansas Supreme Court, 281 Kan. 1287, 136 P.3d 428 (2006) Official landing: https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hayes-Sight-Sound-Inc-v-ONEOK-Inc Readable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2006/92704.html | Statutory-cap discussion at readable HTML lines **336–376**, especially lines 344–349 quoting subsection (e), and 375–376 applying caps separately to consolidated cases. No accessible PDF index. | **Fresh targeted read.** Published controlling Kansas Supreme Court opinion. Official landing was located but direct open returned HTTP 403; complete relevant text read from public reproduction. The case did not invoke the net-worth substitution on its facts. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2006/92704.html) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S005** | **Scheufler v. General Host Corp.**, 915 F. Supp. 236 (D. Kan. 1995) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/ | Punitive-cap interpretation at reported page **240**, readable HTML lines **120–121**. No PDF index. | **Fresh targeted read.** Persuasive federal district decision applying Kansas law. It expressly treated the net-worth substitute as remaining subject to the $5 million ceiling. Not controlling Kansas appellate authority. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S006** | **Gillespie v. Seymour**, 253 Kan. 169, 853 P.2d 692 (1993) Official landing: https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Gillespie-v-Seymour-1 Readable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html | Predecessor subsection-(f) text and findings requirement at reported pages **170–174**, readable HTML lines **81–110**. No accessible PDF index. | **Fresh targeted read.** Published controlling Kansas Supreme Court opinion. Official landing returned HTTP 403. It construed predecessor K.S.A. 60-3701; the quoted “in lieu of” profitability language is materially the same as current §60-3702(f), but the then-applicable subsection (e) did not yet contain the present net-worth sentence. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S007** | **Gillespie v. Seymour**, 255 Kan. 774, 877 P.2d 409 (1994) Readable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1994/70-592-3.html | Profit and subsection-(f) discussion at reported pages approximately **782–783**, readable HTML lines **139–149**. No PDF index. | **Fresh targeted read.** Published Kansas Supreme Court follow-up. Used to confirm the need to identify actual misconduct profit rather than assume compensatory damages or gross receipts. No full subsequent-history audit. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1994/70-592-3.html) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S008** | **Trendel v. Rogers**, 24 Kan. App. 2d 938, 955 P.2d 150 (1998) https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html | Entitlement and discretion discussion at readable HTML lines **89–100**. No PDF index. | **Fresh targeted read.** Published Kansas Court of Appeals decision. Confirms that qualifying conduct does not make a punitive award automatic. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html) |\n| **S_KS-P16-S009** | **Scheufler v. General Host Corp.**, 126 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1997) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/1261/497822/ | Appeal posture and affirmance at readable HTML lines **60–61**, **124–125**, and **208–221**. No official PDF located in the bounded search; no PDF index. | **Fresh targeted read.** Published Tenth Circuit opinion affirming the $550,000 award. It did not separately decide the net-worth/$5 million nesting issue. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/1261/497822/) |\n\n# 11. Preserved findings and residual holds\n\nThe following PASS-06 findings remain unchanged:\n\n- Direct K.S.A. 50-1133 relief requires a consumer injured by a violation.\n- The damages floor remains the amount paid to the CSO plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs.\n- Punitive damages remain discretionary.\n- KCPA private damages and the court-set civil penalty remain alternatives—the greater of the two—not automatically additive.\n- KCPA violation units, class predicates, and government enforcement remain distinct.\n- OSBC’s $10,000-per-incident fine, elder/disabled additional $10,000-per-violation authority, restitution **or** disgorgement language, and discretionary interest up to 8% remain unchanged.\n- K.S.A. 21-6502’s literal “registered” wording versus the current civil licensing regime remains unresolved.\n- The noncustodial elements of K.S.A. 21-6502 remain distinct.\n- K.S.A. 50-1131 mens rea remains held.\n- The inferred three-year classification for a direct K.S.A. 50-1133 action remains an inference, not a controlling holding.\n- K.S.A. 50-1126(e) accrual, private enforcement, burden of proving error, cure, offsets, and double-recovery treatment remain unresolved.\n- No punitive cap, refund, voidness, penalty, or damages result is applied to an actual provider or transaction.\n\nNo complete Kansas, provider, parent, A066, operational, or publication acceptance follows from this bounded correction.\n\n**END S_KS PASS-16.**\n\n","tables":[{"headers":["Correction group","Affected PASS-06 cells","Disposition"],"index":0,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[]],"rows":[["Correction group","Affected PASS-06 cells","Disposition"],["1. Unauthorized imposition versus receipt","B1; affected B2 rows; route/amount matrix; S_KS-P6-C004; unauthorized-charge and unauthorized-amount coverage rows; Example J1/J2 qualification","K.S.A. 50-1126(e) is triggered when a licensee imposes an unauthorized fee or charge or receives unauthorized funds or payments, absent accidental and bona fide error. Receipt is not the exclusive trigger. An unpaid imposed charge can trigger statutory voidness, but no cash refund amount can be calculated where the consumer paid and the licensee received $0."],["2. Punitive-cap nesting","D2; punitive rows in the G amount/status table; S_KS-P6-C022; J10 follow-up; punitive-cap coverage rows","Under subsection (e), the income measure—or 50% of net worth after the required inadequacy finding—remains subject to the separate $5 million lesser-of ceiling. Subsection (f), when its profitability finding is made, applies in lieu of subsection (e) and replaces the entire subsection-(e) ceiling with a cap equal to 1.5 times actual or expected misconduct profit."]]},{"headers":["Question","Corrected PASS-16 result"],"index":1,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Question","Corrected PASS-16 result"],["What triggers K.S.A. 50-1126(e)?","Either the unauthorized imposition of a fee or charge or the unauthorized receipt of funds or payments, absent accidental and bona fide error."],["Can an unpaid imposed fee trigger the subsection?","Yes. Imposition is an independent textual trigger for agreement voidness."],["Does an unpaid imposed fee generate a cash refund?","No cash refund amount can be calculated where the consumer paid and the licensee received $0. The statute does not expressly specify the accounting treatment of the unpaid line item."],["Does the subsection direct return of an unauthorized amount actually paid or received?","Yes, absent accidental and bona fide error."],["Does it make the agreement void?","Yes, when either textual trigger is established and the error qualification does not apply."],["Does the subsection itself award attorney fees?","No."],["Does the subsection itself award punitive damages?","No."],["Does it state a standalone private cause of action?","Not expressly. Direct KCSOA, KCPA, declaratory, injunctive, administrative, and other possible routes each retain their own predicates."],["Does later reversal or repayment erase the violation?","Not stated."],["Does accidental bona fide error make the fee affirmatively lawful?","Not stated."],["Does the statute provide a general cure period?","No express cure period appears in subsection (e)."],["Is every dollar paid under the agreement automatically unauthorized?","No. The disputed fee, charge, fund, or payment must be classified under K.S.A. 50-1126."],["Is a returned amount automatically cumulative with compensatory damages for the same dollar?","No automatic duplicate recovery is established. Offset, election, and judgment-structure questions remain held."]]},{"headers":["Remedy or limitation","Correct formula or ceiling","Required findings","Status"],"index":2,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Remedy or limitation","Correct formula or ceiling","Required findings","Status"],["Ordinary subsection-(e) cap — income branch","min(I, $5,000,000)","Court determines highest gross annual income in the five-year lookback; no clearly-inadequate finding","Maximum only; award remains discretionary"],["Subsection-(e) cap — net-worth substitution","min(0.50 × N, $5,000,000)","Court expressly finds the income measure clearly inadequate and determines net worth","Paragraph (e)(2)’s $5 million ceiling continues to apply"],["Subsection-(f) profit alternative","1.5 × P","Court first determines the subsection-(e) limitation, then finds misconduct profit exceeds or is expected to exceed it, and determines actual or expected profit","Applies in lieu of subsection (e); the $5 million subsection-(e) ceiling does not continue"],["Actual punitive award","0 ≤ award ≤ applicable cap","Entitlement, clear-and-convincing culpability, amount proceeding, statutory factors, entity attribution where applicable","No presumption that the court awards the maximum"]]},{"headers":["PASS-16 claim ID","Mapped PASS-06 ID","Replacement claim","Sources and pinpoints","Conditions, consequence, and confidence"],"index":3,"links":[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+1"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature\n+2"}]],"rows":[["PASS-16 claim ID","Mapped PASS-06 ID","Replacement claim","Sources and pinpoints","Conditions, consequence, and confidence"],["S_KS-P16-C001","Replaces S_KS-P6-C004","K.S.A. 50-1126(e) is triggered when a licensee either imposes an unauthorized fee or charge or receives unauthorized funds or payments, absent accidental and bona fide error. The agreement is then void, and unauthorized amounts received or paid are subject to return.","S_KS-P16-S001, K.S.A. 50-1126(e)(1)–(2). \nKansas Legislature","High textual confidence. Actual licensee status, authorization, imposition, receipt, and error facts remain unprovided."],["S_KS-P16-C002","New clarification to C004","An unpaid imposed fee can trigger agreement voidness, but where the consumer paid and the licensee received $0, no cash-refund amount is established. The statute does not expressly specify how the unpaid accounting entry must be reversed or removed.","S_KS-P16-S001, §50-1126(e). \nKansas Legislature","High as a bounded distinction; bookkeeping remedy unresolved."],["S_KS-P16-C003","Preserves S_KS-P6-C005","Section 50-1126(e) states no express cure period, burden-allocation rule, or detailed bona-fide-error test.","S_KS-P16-S001, §50-1126(e). \nKansas Legislature","High bounded reading; interpretation unresolved."],["S_KS-P16-C004","Preserves S_KS-P6-C006","Section 50-1126(e) does not itself award attorney fees, punitive damages, or a civil penalty.","S_KS-P16-S001; separate private remedy in S_KS-P16-S002. \nKansas Legislature\n+1","High."],["S_KS-P16-C005","Replaces/qualifies S_KS-P6-C022","Punitive damages under K.S.A. 50-1133(b) are permitted but not automatic; entitlement and amount remain governed by the applicable K.S.A. 60-3702 predicates and discretion.","S_KS-P16-S002, §50-1133(b); S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(a)–(d); S_KS-P16-S008. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","High."],["S_KS-P16-C006","New correction to punitive-cap coverage","After a clearly-inadequate-income finding, 50% of net worth substitutes for the income measure in §60-3702(e)(1), but §60-3702(e)(2)’s $5 million ceiling continues. The complete subsection-(e) cap is min(50% of net worth, $5 million).","S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(e); S_KS-P16-S004; persuasive S_KS-P16-S005. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","High textual confidence; no Kansas appellate case located squarely applying the net-worth substitution facts."],["S_KS-P16-C007","New correction to punitive-cap coverage","If the court finds misconduct profit exceeds or is expected to exceed the complete subsection-(e) limitation, §60-3702(f) applies in lieu of subsection (e), and the statutory cap becomes 1.5 times actual or expected misconduct profit.","S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(f); S_KS-P16-S006 and S007. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","High. Sufficient findings of the subsection-(e) limit and misconduct profit are required."],["S_KS-P16-C008","New","The subsection-(f) profit branch does not carry forward subsection-(e)’s income, net-worth, or $5 million caps, but the actual award remains discretionary and subject to all other applicable constraints.","S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(a)–(f); S_KS-P16-S006; S_KS-P16-S008. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","High for statutory nesting; constitutional and KCSOA-specific application remain open."]]},{"headers":["PASS-06 coverage item","Corrected status","Corrected claim IDs","Exact remaining evidence or next action"],"index":4,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["PASS-06 coverage item","Corrected status","Corrected claim IDs","Exact remaining evidence or next action"],["Unauthorized-charge voidness","Answered at statutory-trigger level","C001–C002","Determine actual licensee coverage, fee authorization, imposition event, receipt, and error facts."],["Unauthorized amount calculation","Partial","C001–C002","Separate amount imposed, amount paid, amount received, accounting reversal, and any offsets."],["Unpaid unauthorized fee","Answered only for trigger/cash-return distinction","C002","No statutory accounting remedy or private-damages result established."],["Bona-fide-error standard and burden","Unresolved","C003","Controlling case, formal OSBC interpretation, or order."],["Cure or immunity from later reversal/refund","Unresolved","C003","No express cure provision located."],["Standalone private enforcement of §50-1126(e)","Partial/unresolved","C004 plus preserved PASS-06 private-remedy claims","Cause-of-action, injury, causation, offset, and limitations authority."],["Punitive entitlement","Answered at rule level","C005","Actual clear-and-convincing evidence, entity authorization/ratification, and trier findings."],["Ordinary subsection-(e) cap","Answered","C006","Actual income, inadequacy finding, net worth, and separate-case treatment."],["Net-worth substitution nesting","Answered","C006","Factual net worth and inadequacy finding remain absent."],["Profit alternative","Answered at formula level","C007–C008","Actual misconduct profit and sufficient findings."],["KCSOA-specific punitive-cap case law","Unresolved","C005–C008","No current KCSOA appellate application located."],["Constitutional or other independent punitive limits","Excluded except preserved boundary","C008","Separate due-process and claim-specific analysis."],["Actual punitive award","Not determined","C005–C008","Entitlement, evidence, discretion, and actual defendant financial facts."]]},{"headers":["Source ID","Title, issuer, and full literal URL","Exact read scope and pinpoint","Access, version, status, and limits"],"index":5,"links":[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"},{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2006/92704.html","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1994/70-592-3.html","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/1261/497822/","text":"Justia Law"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"}],[{"href":"https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","text":"Kansas Legislature"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2006/92704.html","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1994/70-592-3.html","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/1261/497822/","text":"Justia Law"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Title, issuer, and full literal URL","Exact read scope and pinpoint","Access, version, status, and limits"],["S_KS-P16-S001","Kansas Revisor, K.S.A. 50-1126 — Fees charged by licensee; when allowed\nhttps://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","Complete current subsections (a)–(e); correction centers on subsection (e)(1)–(2) at HTML line 60. No printed page or PDF index.","Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Official page labeled 2026 Kansas Statutes. Website update timestamp is not an enactment date or complete amendment audit. \nKansas Legislature"],["S_KS-P16-S002","Kansas Revisor, K.S.A. 50-1133 — Private remedies\nhttps://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/","Complete subsections (a)–(b) at HTML line 57. No printed page or PDF index.","Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Used only to preserve injury, amount-paid floor, fees/costs, and discretionary-punitive boundaries. \nKansas Legislature"],["S_KS-P16-S003","Kansas Revisor, K.S.A. 60-3702 — Punitive and exemplary damages\nhttps://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","Complete current subsections (a)–(h); subsection (e)(1)–(2) and subsection (f) at HTML line 58. No printed page or PDF index.","Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Current official statute. History line identifies 1988 enactment and 1992 amendment; no full history audit. \nKansas Legislature"],["S_KS-P16-S004","Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. ONEOK, Inc., Kansas Supreme Court, 281 Kan. 1287, 136 P.3d 428 (2006)\nOfficial landing: https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hayes-Sight-Sound-Inc-v-ONEOK-Inc\nReadable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2006/92704.html","Statutory-cap discussion at readable HTML lines 336–376, especially lines 344–349 quoting subsection (e), and 375–376 applying caps separately to consolidated cases. No accessible PDF index.","Fresh targeted read. Published controlling Kansas Supreme Court opinion. Official landing was located but direct open returned HTTP 403; complete relevant text read from public reproduction. The case did not invoke the net-worth substitution on its facts. \nJustia Law"],["S_KS-P16-S005","Scheufler v. General Host Corp., 915 F. Supp. 236 (D. Kan. 1995)\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/","Punitive-cap interpretation at reported page 240, readable HTML lines 120–121. No PDF index.","Fresh targeted read. Persuasive federal district decision applying Kansas law. It expressly treated the net-worth substitute as remaining subject to the $5 million ceiling. Not controlling Kansas appellate authority. \nJustia Law"],["S_KS-P16-S006","Gillespie v. Seymour, 253 Kan. 169, 853 P.2d 692 (1993)\nOfficial landing: https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Gillespie-v-Seymour-1\nReadable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html","Predecessor subsection-(f) text and findings requirement at reported pages 170–174, readable HTML lines 81–110. No accessible PDF index.","Fresh targeted read. Published controlling Kansas Supreme Court opinion. Official landing returned HTTP 403. It construed predecessor K.S.A. 60-3701; the quoted “in lieu of” profitability language is materially the same as current §60-3702(f), but the then-applicable subsection (e) did not yet contain the present net-worth sentence. \nJustia Law"],["S_KS-P16-S007","Gillespie v. Seymour, 255 Kan. 774, 877 P.2d 409 (1994)\nReadable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1994/70-592-3.html","Profit and subsection-(f) discussion at reported pages approximately 782–783, readable HTML lines 139–149. No PDF index.","Fresh targeted read. Published Kansas Supreme Court follow-up. Used to confirm the need to identify actual misconduct profit rather than assume compensatory damages or gross receipts. No full subsequent-history audit. \nJustia Law"],["S_KS-P16-S008","Trendel v. Rogers, 24 Kan. App. 2d 938, 955 P.2d 150 (1998)\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html","Entitlement and discretion discussion at readable HTML lines 89–100. No PDF index.","Fresh targeted read. Published Kansas Court of Appeals decision. Confirms that qualifying conduct does not make a punitive award automatic. \nJustia Law"],["S_KS-P16-S009","Scheufler v. General Host Corp., 126 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1997)\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/1261/497822/","Appeal posture and affirmance at readable HTML lines 60–61, 124–125, and 208–221. No official PDF located in the bounded search; no PDF index.","Fresh targeted read. Published Tenth Circuit opinion affirming the $550,000 award. It did not separately decide the net-worth/$5 million nesting issue. \nJustia Law"]]}],"claims":[{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C001","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C001","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"Replaces S_KS-P6-C004","Replacement claim":"K.S.A. 50-1126(e) is triggered when a licensee either imposes an unauthorized fee or charge or receives unauthorized funds or payments, absent accidental and bona fide error. The agreement is then void, and unauthorized amounts received or paid are subject to return.","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S001, K.S.A. 50-1126(e)(1)–(2). \nKansas Legislature","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High textual confidence. Actual licensee status, authorization, imposition, receipt, and error facts remain unprovided."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C002","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C002","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"New clarification to C004","Replacement claim":"An unpaid imposed fee can trigger agreement voidness, but where the consumer paid and the licensee received $0, no cash-refund amount is established. The statute does not expressly specify how the unpaid accounting entry must be reversed or removed.","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S001, §50-1126(e). \nKansas Legislature","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High as a bounded distinction; bookkeeping remedy unresolved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C003","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C003","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"Preserves S_KS-P6-C005","Replacement claim":"Section 50-1126(e) states no express cure period, burden-allocation rule, or detailed bona-fide-error test.","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S001, §50-1126(e). \nKansas Legislature","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High bounded reading; interpretation unresolved."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C004","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C004","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"Preserves S_KS-P6-C006","Replacement claim":"Section 50-1126(e) does not itself award attorney fees, punitive damages, or a civil penalty.","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S001; separate private remedy in S_KS-P16-S002. \nKansas Legislature\n+1","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C005","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C005","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"Replaces/qualifies S_KS-P6-C022","Replacement claim":"Punitive damages under K.S.A. 50-1133(b) are permitted but not automatic; entitlement and amount remain governed by the applicable K.S.A. 60-3702 predicates and discretion.","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S002, §50-1133(b); S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(a)–(d); S_KS-P16-S008. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C006","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C006","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"New correction to punitive-cap coverage","Replacement claim":"After a clearly-inadequate-income finding, 50% of net worth substitutes for the income measure in §60-3702(e)(1), but §60-3702(e)(2)’s $5 million ceiling continues. The complete subsection-(e) cap is min(50% of net worth, $5 million).","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(e); S_KS-P16-S004; persuasive S_KS-P16-S005. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High textual confidence; no Kansas appellate case located squarely applying the net-worth substitution facts."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C007","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C007","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"New correction to punitive-cap coverage","Replacement claim":"If the court finds misconduct profit exceeds or is expected to exceed the complete subsection-(e) limitation, §60-3702(f) applies in lieu of subsection (e), and the statutory cap becomes 1.5 times actual or expected misconduct profit.","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(f); S_KS-P16-S006 and S007. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High. Sufficient findings of the subsection-(e) limit and misconduct profit are required."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"claim_id":"S_KS-P16-C008","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-16 claim ID":"S_KS-P16-C008","Mapped PASS-06 ID":"New","Replacement claim":"The subsection-(f) profit branch does not carry forward subsection-(e)’s income, net-worth, or $5 million caps, but the actual award remains discretionary and subject to all other applicable constraints.","Sources and pinpoints":"S_KS-P16-S003, §60-3702(a)–(f); S_KS-P16-S006; S_KS-P16-S008. \nKansas Legislature\n+2","Conditions, consequence, and confidence":"High for statutory nesting; constitutional and KCSOA-specific application remain open."},"coordinator_verification_status":"targeted_text_or_formula_supported_with_limits","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"}],"sources":[{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S001","urls":["https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S001","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Kansas Revisor, K.S.A. 50-1126 — Fees charged by licensee; when allowed\nhttps://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0026_section/050_011_0026_k/","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Complete current subsections (a)–(e); correction centers on subsection (e)(1)–(2) at HTML line 60. No printed page or PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Official page labeled 2026 Kansas Statutes. Website update timestamp is not an enactment date or complete amendment audit. \nKansas Legislature"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S002","urls":["https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S002","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Kansas Revisor, K.S.A. 50-1133 — Private remedies\nhttps://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/050_000_0000_chapter/050_011_0000_article/050_011_0033_section/050_011_0033_k/","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Complete subsections (a)–(b) at HTML line 57. No printed page or PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Used only to preserve injury, amount-paid floor, fees/costs, and discretionary-punitive boundaries. \nKansas Legislature"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S003","urls":["https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S003","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Kansas Revisor, K.S.A. 60-3702 — Punitive and exemplary damages\nhttps://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/laws/060_000_0000_chapter/060_037_0000_article/060_037_0002_section/060_037_0002_k/","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Complete current subsections (a)–(h); subsection (e)(1)–(2) and subsection (f) at HTML line 58. No printed page or PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Current official statute. History line identifies 1988 enactment and 1992 amendment; no full history audit. \nKansas Legislature"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S004","urls":["https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hayes-Sight-Sound-Inc-v-ONEOK-Inc","https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2006/92704.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S004","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. ONEOK, Inc., Kansas Supreme Court, 281 Kan. 1287, 136 P.3d 428 (2006)\nOfficial landing: https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Hayes-Sight-Sound-Inc-v-ONEOK-Inc\nReadable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2006/92704.html","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Statutory-cap discussion at readable HTML lines 336–376, especially lines 344–349 quoting subsection (e), and 375–376 applying caps separately to consolidated cases. No accessible PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh targeted read. Published controlling Kansas Supreme Court opinion. Official landing was located but direct open returned HTTP 403; complete relevant text read from public reproduction. The case did not invoke the net-worth substitution on its facts. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S005","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S005","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Scheufler v. General Host Corp., 915 F. Supp. 236 (D. Kan. 1995)\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/915/236/1618216/","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Punitive-cap interpretation at reported page 240, readable HTML lines 120–121. No PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh targeted read. Persuasive federal district decision applying Kansas law. It expressly treated the net-worth substitute as remaining subject to the $5 million ceiling. Not controlling Kansas appellate authority. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S006","urls":["https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Gillespie-v-Seymour-1","https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S006","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Gillespie v. Seymour, 253 Kan. 169, 853 P.2d 692 (1993)\nOfficial landing: https://kscourts.gov/Cases-Decisions/Decisions/Published/Gillespie-v-Seymour-1\nReadable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1993/68-691-3.html","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Predecessor subsection-(f) text and findings requirement at reported pages 170–174, readable HTML lines 81–110. No accessible PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh targeted read. Published controlling Kansas Supreme Court opinion. Official landing returned HTTP 403. It construed predecessor K.S.A. 60-3701; the quoted “in lieu of” profitability language is materially the same as current §60-3702(f), but the then-applicable subsection (e) did not yet contain the present net-worth sentence. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S007","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1994/70-592-3.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S007","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Gillespie v. Seymour, 255 Kan. 774, 877 P.2d 409 (1994)\nReadable reproduction: https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1994/70-592-3.html","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Profit and subsection-(f) discussion at reported pages approximately 782–783, readable HTML lines 139–149. No PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh targeted read. Published Kansas Supreme Court follow-up. Used to confirm the need to identify actual misconduct profit rather than assume compensatory damages or gross receipts. No full subsequent-history audit. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S008","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S008","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Trendel v. Rogers, 24 Kan. App. 2d 938, 955 P.2d 150 (1998)\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/court-of-appeals/1998/77811.html","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Entitlement and discretion discussion at readable HTML lines 89–100. No PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh targeted read. Published Kansas Court of Appeals decision. Confirms that qualifying conduct does not make a punitive award automatic. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_KS-P16-S009","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/1261/497822/"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_KS-P16-S009","Title, issuer, and full literal URL":"Scheufler v. General Host Corp., 126 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1997)\nhttps://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/126/1261/497822/","Exact read scope and pinpoint":"Appeal posture and affirmance at readable HTML lines 60–61, 124–125, and 208–221. No official PDF located in the bounded search; no PDF index.","Access, version, status, and limits":"Fresh targeted read. Published Tenth Circuit opinion affirming the $550,000 award. It did not separately decide the net-worth/$5 million nesting issue. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"}],"coverage":[{"topic":"Unauthorized-charge voidness","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Unauthorized-charge voidness","Corrected status":"Answered at statutory-trigger level","Corrected claim IDs":"C001–C002","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Determine actual licensee coverage, fee authorization, imposition event, receipt, and error facts."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Unauthorized amount calculation","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Unauthorized amount calculation","Corrected status":"Partial","Corrected claim IDs":"C001–C002","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Separate amount imposed, amount paid, amount received, accounting reversal, and any offsets."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Unpaid unauthorized fee","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Unpaid unauthorized fee","Corrected status":"Answered only for trigger/cash-return distinction","Corrected claim IDs":"C002","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"No statutory accounting remedy or private-damages result established."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Bona-fide-error standard and burden","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Bona-fide-error standard and burden","Corrected status":"Unresolved","Corrected claim IDs":"C003","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Controlling case, formal OSBC interpretation, or order."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Cure or immunity from later reversal/refund","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Cure or immunity from later reversal/refund","Corrected status":"Unresolved","Corrected claim IDs":"C003","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"No express cure provision located."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Standalone private enforcement of §50-1126(e)","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Standalone private enforcement of §50-1126(e)","Corrected status":"Partial/unresolved","Corrected claim IDs":"C004 plus preserved PASS-06 private-remedy claims","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Cause-of-action, injury, causation, offset, and limitations authority."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Punitive entitlement","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Punitive entitlement","Corrected status":"Answered at rule level","Corrected claim IDs":"C005","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Actual clear-and-convincing evidence, entity authorization/ratification, and trier findings."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Ordinary subsection-(e) cap","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Ordinary subsection-(e) cap","Corrected status":"Answered","Corrected claim IDs":"C006","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Actual income, inadequacy finding, net worth, and separate-case treatment."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Net-worth substitution nesting","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Net-worth substitution nesting","Corrected status":"Answered","Corrected claim IDs":"C006","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Factual net worth and inadequacy finding remain absent."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Profit alternative","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Profit alternative","Corrected status":"Answered at formula level","Corrected claim IDs":"C007–C008","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Actual misconduct profit and sufficient findings."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"KCSOA-specific punitive-cap case law","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"KCSOA-specific punitive-cap case law","Corrected status":"Unresolved","Corrected claim IDs":"C005–C008","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"No current KCSOA appellate application located."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Constitutional or other independent punitive limits","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Constitutional or other independent punitive limits","Corrected status":"Excluded except preserved boundary","Corrected claim IDs":"C008","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Separate due-process and claim-specific analysis."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"},{"topic":"Actual punitive award","researcher_record":{"PASS-06 coverage item":"Actual punitive award","Corrected status":"Not determined","Corrected claim IDs":"C005–C008","Exact remaining evidence or next action":"Entitlement, evidence, discretion, and actual defendant financial facts."},"coordinator_acceptance":"targeted_wording_and_formula_resolved_with_explicit_remaining_application_holds","coordinator_review":"[internal evidence reference]"}],"annotations":{},"corrections":[],"resolved_corrections":[],"review_history":[]}