Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

SettleADebt.com — S_KS, PASS-02

Bounded precision-correction addendum

Correction access date: October 25, 2026, America/Los_Angeles Actual model: GPT-5.6 Sol Pro Review character: Same-project correction, not an independent review. Preservation rule: PASS-01 remains unchanged except for the express replacement text, source records, claim records, example E08, and coverage labels below. The other nine worked examples, all matched arithmetic, and the preserved hashes are not regenerated or displaced.

A. Substantive replacement text

A1. Replace the A3.1 electronic-processing fee row

K.S.A. 50-1126(b)(8) contains two distinct predicates: the electronic-processing charge must be “authorized by the consumer,” while the no-charge sentence applies where the consumer “has agreed to make all scheduled payments by electronic means.” Actual use of electronic payments, standing alone, is therefore not the statutory no-charge test. Conversely, later deviation from an all-electronic agreement does not, by itself, establish that the agreement ceased to exist or that a charge became permissible; modification, withdrawal, waiver, breach, and changed-schedule consequences remain unaddressed by the reviewed text. Kansas Legislature+1

The following PASS-01 conditions remain unchanged:

• Except for K.S.A. 50-1126(b)(5), the agreement-execution prerequisite in subsection (a) still applies.
• No extra agreement-related financial-analysis, initial-budget, debt-management-counseling, required-education, or rescission fee is allowed under subsection (d).
• An unauthorized payment causes the agreement to be void and requires return of the unauthorized amount, except where the statutory accidental-and-bona-fide-error qualification applies.
• The $75 consultation ceiling and monthly min($40, $5 × listed creditors) formula are not altered by this correction. Kansas Legislature+4

Replacement for S_KS-P1-C026

Corrected assertion: K.S.A. 50-1126(b)(7) permits up to $30 one time for each insufficient payment. Subsection (b)(8) separately permits up to $5 to process a payment made electronically if the consumer authorizes that charge, but prohibits assessment of that electronic-processing charge where the consumer has agreed to make all scheduled payments electronically. The prohibition turns on the agreement predicate, not actual payment behavior alone. The reviewed provision does not establish an actual-expense reimbursement formula. Whether the NSF and electronic-processing categories can both apply to the same transaction remains held; PASS-01 E08 continues to treat them as separate events. Kansas Legislature+1

A2. Replace PASS-01 Example E08 only

E08 — Insufficient payment and electronic processing: corrected two-branch predicate

The insufficient-payment event and the later electronic-payment event remain separate. No same-event stacking conclusion is supplied.

Source: K.S.A. 50-1126(b)(7)–(8). Kansas Legislature+1

A3. Replace A4.4 credit-repair timing paragraph

Where the Telemarketing Sales Rule actually applies to goods or services represented to remove derogatory credit information or improve a person’s credit history, record, or rating, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(2) prohibits requesting or receiving the fee until both of the following have occurred:

1. The represented time frame for providing all the goods or services has expired.
2. The seller has provided the person documentation in the form of a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency demonstrating that the promised results were achieved, and that report was issued more than six months after the results were achieved.

A report’s mere existence is insufficient. Six months from contract execution or service enrollment is not the rule. A report issued exactly six months after the achieved results is also insufficient because the regulation says more than six months. The seller must provide the qualifying report to the person. The regulation also preserves the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirement that a consumer report be obtained only for a specified permissible purpose. This is conditional TSR credit-repair timing; it does not establish universal TSR coverage, actual achievement of any result, CROA coverage or exemption, Kansas fee authority, or actual fee earning. The eCFR text was freshly checked for this addendum and displayed Title 16 as current through October 22, 2026. eCFR+1

Replacement for S_KS-P1-C036

Corrected assertion: Actual credit-improvement representations may conditionally implicate CROA and the separate TSR credit-repair timing rule. When 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(2) applies, the represented time frame for all goods or services must have expired, and the seller must have provided the person a consumer-reporting-agency report demonstrating the promised results, issued more than six months after those results were achieved. A report merely existing, a six-month period measured from contract execution, or a report issued exactly six months after the achieved results does not satisfy that text. The FCRA permissible-purpose proviso remains. CROA’s separate definition, exclusions, and full-performance rule do not become Kansas exemptions and remain fact-dependent. eCFR+3

A4. Replace the A4.2/C033 debt-relief timing shorthand

When the TSR applies to a debt-relief service, 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(5)(i) requires more than an altered debt and an unspecified payment. Before requesting or receiving a fee:

1. The seller or telemarketer must have renegotiated, settled, reduced, or otherwise altered at least one debt pursuant to a settlement agreement, debt-management plan, or other valid contractual agreement executed by the customer.
2. The customer must have made at least one payment pursuant to that agreement between the customer and the creditor or debt collector.
3. Where enrolled debts are altered individually, the applicable proportional-allocation or uniform-savings-percentage condition must also be satisfied.

Those federal conditions govern timing and allocation of an otherwise lawful fee when the TSR applies. They do not create a Kansas percentage-fee category, establish universal TSR coverage, prove that any fee was earned, or displace the state-law fee analysis. eCFR+2

Replacement for S_KS-P1-C033

Corrected assertion: When the TSR debt-relief provision applies, requesting or receiving a fee requires at least one altered debt pursuant to a valid contractual agreement executed by the customer, at least one customer payment pursuant to that agreement between the customer and the creditor or debt collector, and all applicable subsection (a)(5)(i)(C) allocation conditions where debts are altered individually. Coverage remains channel- and fact-specific, and satisfaction of the federal timing rule does not authorize a fee that Kansas law does not otherwise permit. eCFR+1

A5. Attorney-exemption prose replacement

Hays v. Ruther answered a certified legal question under the 2005 KCSOA version: the law firm of an attorney who qualified for the attorney exemption also shared that exemption. The Kansas Supreme Court used the 2012 amendment as a clarification of the earlier text and expressly left factual application to the federal court. It did not decide that any particular defendant entity actually qualified. Justia Law+2

Under the current statute and the pleading-stage Williamson decision, a generic law-firm name, contractual characterization, or attorney signature does not alone establish the exemption. The required issues include actual work by a Kansas-licensed attorney within the course and scope of that attorney’s practice and the entity’s qualifying relationship as that attorney’s law firm. Williamson treated the exemption as an affirmative defense and denied dismissal of Counts II and III; it was not a final merits determination or provider authorization. The order was signed and filed November 5, 2025, notwithstanding the search-result title’s November 6 date. District of Kansas Bankruptcy Court+3

A6. Nazar qualification replacement

Nazar v. Allied Consumer Services was signed and filed April 16, 2012; the public search title displays April 17. The selected procedure, facts, and classification portions show that Allied submitted no proper answer, a default was entered, it filed no response to the later summary-judgment motion, and the court relied on properly supported, undisputed facts. The decision applied the former registration regime to a noncustodial settlement arrangement in which the consumer was to pay creditors directly. It remains persuasive functional-coverage evidence, but it is not a modern, contested interpretation of the current licensing statute. District of Kansas Bankruptcy Court+3

B. Exact old-to-new cell and pinpoint matrix

C. PASS-02 source table

D. PASS-02 claim table

E. PASS-02 coverage and gap table

F. Researcher self-check

Freshly checked in PASS-02

• Complete K.S.A. 50-1126(a)–(e) and its displayed history.
• Selected current Revisor pages for K.S.A. 50-1116, 50-1117, 50-1118, 50-1120, 50-1121, 50-1122, and 21-6502.
• 16 C.F.R. §310.4(a)(2) and §310.4(a)(5)(i)(A)–(C).
• Relevant OSBC PDF pages using both PDF and printed labels.
• Relevant Williamson pages and the signed/filed date.
• Selected Nazar procedure, facts, classification, and signed/filed date.
• Selected Hays opinion text through the HTML opinion reproduction; official routes were separately retried and returned 403.
• OLRC §§1679a–1679b currency and operative passages, plus the identified GovInfo 2023 route.
• Selected 2017 Session Laws pages, effective clause, publication page, and authentication page.
• The complete 2004 New §11 fee provision.

Preserved supplied or prior-read history

• PASS-01’s complete tables, examples other than E08, arithmetic, source identities, claim identities, and unresolved issues.
• The coordinator’s complete nine-page parsed-text read of Williamson.
• PASS-01’s earlier recorded Hays PDF-read history; the later coordinator accessibility result does not retroactively rewrite it.
• The earlier complete New §11 and 2017 §22 readings.

Not performed

• No Kansas overview rerun.
• No wholesale licensing, fee, or example regeneration.
• No complete Article 11 audit, complete Nazar read, full 1,135-page session-law read, full chapter 52 read, all-case citator review, or exhaustive 2026 amendment audit.
• No NMLS provider lookup, application filing, contact, account action, private-data use, website work, publication, Chrome control, Deep Research, Work, or independent review.
• No legal or operational conclusion was added concerning a named provider.
• No state, parent-dossier, publication-readiness, or A066 acceptance is implied.

PASS-02 result: The identified predicates, federal timing language, source pinpoints, access histories, and version descriptions are corrected. All other PASS-01 findings and holds remain preserved.

END S_KS PASS-02.