Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 58-504 (2026)

Indefinite failure of issue; definite failure of issue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

58-504. Indefinite failure of issue; definite failure of issue. In the case of instruments disposing of property, of which the following is a type: "A to B and his or her heirs, but if B dies without issue, then to C and his or her heirs," the common law rule of interpretation that indefinite failure of issue is indicated shall not be applied. Definite failure of issue is indicated, that is, death of B without having issue living at the time of his or her death. B's death without living issue need not occur in the lifetime of the maker of the instrument. The rules here presented apply when the limitation is on death "without heirs," or, "heirs of the body," or, "issue," or, "children," or, "offspring," or, "descendants," or any such relative however described. Enactment of this statute shall not be regarded as legislative recognition that the common law indefinite failure of issue presumption has ever been a part of the law of this state.

History: L. 1939, ch. 181, § 4; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Mentioned but not applied; will held not to create estate tail. Delp v. George, 158 Kan. 774, 775, 150 P.2d 334.

2. Doctrine discussed but section not cited. Steele v. Pedroja, 178 Kan. 441, 446, 289 P.2d 738.

3. Will found to violate the common-law rule against perpetuities and the allied rules against limitation upon alienation and unlawful accumulation; invalid provision stricken and will upheld. In re Estate of Foster, 190 Kan. 498, 376 P.2d 784.

4. Cited in holding Kansas probate code does not abrogate common law in state; presumption of revocation recognized. In re Estate of Mettee, 10 Kan. App. 2d 184, 186, 694 P.2d 1325 (1985).


Previous | Next

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1985–2006 · leading case: In Re the Est. of Mettee, 694 P.2d 1325 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Est. of Mettee, 694 P.2d 1325 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). “We find no indication that the legislature intended such a result.”
In re the Est. of Roloff, 143 P.3d 406 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). “We find no indication that the legislature intended such a result.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.