59-2224.
Hearings for probate and for determination of validity of spouse's consent; procedure.
The hearing of a petition for the probate of a will and the hearing of a petition for the determination that the consent of the spouse to the will is a valid and binding consent shall be separate issues which, in the discretion of the court, may be determined in a consolidated hearing or in separate hearings. On the hearing of a petition for the probate of a will or for the determination that the consent of a spouse to a will is a valid and binding consent, unless it is an uncontested, self-proved will or consent, the testimony of at least two of the subscribing witnesses shall be taken in person, by affidavit or by deposition. The court may waive the requirement of such testimony of such subscribing witnesses upon a proper showing that such witnesses are unavailable or cannot be located. Otherwise, the court may admit the testimony of other witnesses to prove the capacity of the testator or the spouse and the due execution of the will or consent and, as evidence of such execution, may admit proof of the handwriting of the testator or the spouse and of the subscribing witnesses. Any heir, devisee, or legatee may prosecute or oppose the probate of any will or the determination that the consent of the spouse to the will is a valid and binding consent. If the instrument alleged to be the will is not allowed as the last will and if the estate should be administered, the court shall grant administration to the person or persons entitled thereto.
History:
L. 1939, ch. 180, § 200; L. 1963, ch. 299, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 299, § 17; L. 1977, ch. 197, § 2; L. 1981, ch. 228, § 4; L. 1996, ch. 106, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2024 · leading case:
In Re Est. of Farr, 49 P.3d 415 (Kan. 2002).
In Re Est. of Farr, 49 P.3d 415 (Kan. 2002).
· cites it 2× “449, 461 , 970 P.2d 537 (1998). When offering a will to probate, the burden of proof is initially upon the proponent to make a prima facie case showing capacity *59 and due execution of the will.”
In re Est. of Field, 414 P.3d 1217 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 59-2224 ; In re Estate of Perkins , 210 Kan.”
In Re the Est. of Broderick, 125 P.3d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
“K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-2224 states that at the hearing on the petition for the probate of a will: “[U]nless it is an uncontested, self-proved will .”
Matter of Est. of Beason, 811 P.2d 848 (Kan. 1991).
“The co-executors of Macy’s estate then moved to dismiss from Macy’s estate all of Macy’s various nieces and nephews who were represented (we cannot tell from the record who they all are), arguing that they were not heirs, devisees, or legatees under K.S.A. 59-2224. At a hearing…”
Schillinger v. Indiana Univ. Found., 664 P.2d 824 (Kan. 1983).
“K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 59-2224 states in part: “Any heir, devisee, or legatee may prosecute or oppose the probate of any will .”
In re Est. of Mouchague, 442 P.3d 125 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 59-2224 ; see Matter of Estate of Beason , 248 Kan.”
In Re the Est. of Estes, 718 P.2d 298 (Kan. 1986).
“It would follow then that the relatives do not qualify as statutory designees as defined in K.S.A. 59-2224 Resolution of the issue raised by appellants requires examination of the Kansas disclaimer statutes, K.”
In Re Est. of Williams, 714 P.2d 948 (Kan. 1986).
“On June 7,1984, the district court filed a journal entry holding that the bankruptcy trustee was not a person who is permitted to contest the probate of a will under the provisions of K.S.A. 59-2224. Forty-eight days later, on July 25, 1984, Arnold, as trustee, filed a notice of…”
Osborn v. Cassity, 208 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1949).
· cites it 2× “Section 59-2224 concerns the hearing to be had upon the petition for probate of a will, and certainly it neither contemplates nor authorizes a determination of the persons entitled to the estate or adjudication of the rights of the heirs by the probate court at such hearing.”
In re Est. of Mather (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, under K.S.A. 59-2224, "[a]ny heir, devisee, or legatee may prosecute or oppose the probate of any will.”
In re Est. of Smith-Tindell (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“We noted that because an heir has an interest in the competence and suitability of the executor, Nicolas, as grandson of the testator, has standing to challenge the executor's appointment.”
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.