K.S.A. » Chapter 59
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 59-1303 (2026)

Secured demands

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

59-1303. Secured demands. When a claimant holds any security for his or her demand, it may be allowed, conditioned upon the claimant surrendering the security or upon the claimant exhausting the security; it shall be allowed for the full amount found to be due if the security has been surrendered, or for any remaining amount found to be due if the security has been exhausted.

History: L. 1939, ch. 180, § 97; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Discussed in determining probate court's equitable jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction. Foss v. Wiles, 155 Kan. 262, 266, 124 P.2d 438.

2. Construed with K.S.A. 59-2238; district court's jurisdiction over claims against decedents' estates limited. Egnatic v. Wollard, 156 Kan. 843, 853, 137 P.2d 188.

3. Probate court has exclusive original jurisdiction of wrongful death demand against deceased wrongdoer's estate. Shively v. Burr, 157 Kan. 336, 338, 139 P.2d 401.

4. Secured claim filed and caused to be allowed in full; security waived. In re Estate of Harris, 159 Kan. 431, 433, 155 P.2d 425.

5. Secured claim allowed in full; creditor waived lien and surrenders security. In re Estate of Klein, 166 Kan. 334, 335, 336, 201 P.2d 633.

6. Construed with K.S.A. 59-1304 and 59-2237; mortgage indebtedness allowed as demand; will construed. In re Estate of Cline, 170 Kan. 496, 499, 227 P.2d 157.

7. Applicability to equitable mortgage discussed but not determined. Hill v. Hill, 185 Kan. 389, 403, 345 P.2d 1015.

8. Applied; district court action to establish alleged equitable mortgage on personalty constituted demand; probate court jurisdiction. Shields v. Fink, Executrix, 190 Kan. 17, 23, 25, 28, 29, 372 P.2d 252.

9. Options hereunder; discussed. In re Estate of Dahn, 204 Kan. 535, 540, 541, 464 P.2d 238.

10. Claim against decedent not secured demand; nonclaim statute applied and unsecured demand barred. Jones v. St. Francis Hosp. & School of Nursing, 225 Kan. 649, 653, 594 P.2d 162.

11. If petition in district court filed pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2239, deficiency judgment over security valid demand against estate. Ram Co. v. Estate of Kobbeman, 236 Kan. 751, 763, 764, 696 P.2d 936 (1985).

12. No conflict between administrator's right to possession (K.S.A. 59-1401) and secured creditor's right to self-help repossession (K.S.A. 84-9-503). Parker v. Farmway Credit Union, 11 Kan. App. 2d 223, 225, 718 P.2d 643 (1986).

13. Statute does not reach beyond security interests in property of decedent's estate; surviving comakers provided no relief. Farmers State Bank of Ingalls v. Friesen, 15 Kan. App. 2d 132, 135, 803 P.2d 1049 (1991).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1979–2007 · leading case: Ram Co., Inc. v. Est. of Kobbeman, 696 P.2d 936 (Kan. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ram Co., Inc. v. Est. of Kobbeman, 696 P.2d 936 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 4× “The trial court, citing K.S.A. 59-1303 and 59-2239, found the bank could only get its collateral and could not seek any deficiency from the estate, since no claim was filed against the estate.”
Com. Bank, N.A. v. Bolander, 239 P.3d 83 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 59-1303; K.S.A. 59-2238(2). Commerce later amended its petition to include the Trust as a defendant in the Chapter 60 action.”
Parker v. Farmway Credit Union, 718 P.2d 643 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “He argues that the Probate Code controls what happens to a debtor’s property after his death and that under K.S.A. 59-1303 a creditor is required either to file a claim in the probate court or to foreclose its security interest in a district court proceeding.”
In Re the Est. of Harrison, 967 P.2d 1091 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “*665 Scott and Kristi contend the trial court erred in finding Wolf Creek was not obligated to file a claim in Roger’s estate and that repayment of the loan balance to the 401(k) plan with estate assets was in the estate’s best interest. Scott and Kristi claim Wolf Creek was a…”
Farmers State Bank v. Friesen, 803 P.2d 1049 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “The order in question was based upon the court’s interpretation of K.S.A. 59-1303. For the reasons set out herein, we reverse.”
Jones v. St. Francis Hosp. & Sch. of Nursing, Inc., 594 P.2d 162 (Kan. 1979). “K.S.A. 59-1303. A secured demand may be allowed against the decedent’s estate, conditioned upon surrender of the security.”
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.