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

K.S.A. § 59-2237 (2026)

Exhibition of demands and hearing thereon; allowance without hearing, when

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

59-2237. Exhibition of demands and hearing thereon; allowance without hearing, when. (a) Any person may exhibit a demand against the estate of a decedent by filing a petition for its allowance in the proper district court. Such demand shall be deemed duly exhibited from the date of the filing of the petition. The petition shall contain a statement of all offsets to which the estate is entitled. The person exhibiting the demand shall provide a copy of the demand, as filed, to the personal representative of the estate. The court shall from time to time as it deems advisable, and must at the request of the executor or administrator, or at the request of any creditor having exhibited demand, fix the time and place for the hearing of such demands. Notice of the time and place of the demand hearing shall be given in such manner and to such persons as the court shall direct.

(b) The verification of any demand may be deemed prima facie evidence of its validity unless a written defense thereto is filed. Upon the adjudication of any demand, the court shall enter its judgment allowing or disallowing it. Such judgment shall show the date of adjudication, the amount allowed, the amount disallowed and classification if allowed. Judgments relating to contingent demands shall state the nature of the contingency.

(c) Any demand not exceeding $10,000, other than a demand by the executor or administrator, duly itemized and verified and which is timely filed, may be paid by the executor or administrator without compliance with any of the provisions of this act relating to petition, notice of hearing, allowance by the court or otherwise. If a written defense to the petition of the executor or administrator for a final settlement and accounting is timely filed by any interested party which takes issue with payment of the demand by the executor or administrator, at the hearing on the petition the burden of proof shall be upon the executor or administrator to establish that the demand was due and owing by the estate. If the demand, or any part thereof, is disallowed by the court, the accounting of the executor or administrator shall not be allowed as to the disallowed demand, or part thereof.

History: L. 1939, ch. 180, § 213; L. 1941, ch. 284, § 10; L. 1943, ch. 213, § 3; L. 1974, ch. 238, § 1; L. 1976, ch. 242, § 35; L. 1987, ch. 212, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 173, § 5; L. 2000, ch. 25, § 6; L. 2023, ch. 77, § 10; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1941–2019 · leading case: Meredith v. R. L. Goodyear, 596 P.2d 121 (Kan. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Meredith v. R. L. Goodyear, 596 P.2d 121 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 16× “In determining these issues, it would be helpful to examine certain basic principles of law which have been established to guide the administration of estates of decedents in this state: (1) The statute which governs the exhibition of demands and the procedural steps to be…”
Ram Co., Inc. v. Est. of Kobbeman, 696 P.2d 936 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 2× “Planters did not file a demand in Clyde Kobbeman's estate pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2237. Rather, it served process on Esther, both individually and as executrix of Clyde's estate, pursuant to K.”
In re the Est. of Wolf, 96 P.3d 1110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 59-2237(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny person may exhibit a demand against the estate of a decedent by filing a petition for its allowance in the proper district court.”
Burns v. Drake, 139 P.2d 386 (Kan. 1943). · cites it 2× “) In any event, upon petitioner’s own motion filed on April 7, 1942, the petition was stricken from the files. The instant petition, filed in the probate court on May 14, 1942, was substantially similar to the prior one except that this time appellant alleged that the decedent…”
In Re the Est. of Jones, 588 P.2d 960 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “Thereafter, no claimant, including the Medical Center, filed a petition for allowance of a demand (K.S.A. 59-2237). On May 3, 1978, the trial court denied the Medical Center’s claim for failure to file a separate petition for its allowance within the nonclaim period.”
In re the Est. of Wolf, 112 P.3d 94 (Kan. 2005). “59-2204; K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-2237(b). The majority identified the issue before it as whether the district court exceeded its statutory authority to allow certain claims to be assessed against the estate.”
In Re the Est. of Harrison, 967 P.2d 1091 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Under K.S.A. 59-2237, a claimant must file a demand against the estate where the claim exceeds $1,500, and the Kansas Simplified Estates Act does not make any changes to K.”
In re the Est. of Rains, 815 P.2d 61 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 3× “Specifically, the court held: The petition for allowance was not filed within the time fixed by law (K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 59-2237 and K.S.A. 1990 Supp.”
In re the Est. of Murdock, 884 P.2d 749 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “Regardless of the issue and of the default of interested parties, proof is required before the proponent can carry the burden of proof.”
In re the Est. of Thompson, 962 P.2d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “1935,59-2237 (now K.S.A. 59-2237), which expressly provides that a creditor s demand against a decedent’s estate is effective upon the filing of a petition within the statutory period, had the effect of overruling the decision in In re Estate of Dotson, 154 Kan.”
Norris v. Whittelsey, 131 P.2d 911 (Kan. 1942). · cites it 4× “” Section 59-2237: “Any person may exhibit his demands against the estate of a decedent by filing his petition for its allowance in the proper probate court.”
Dunlap v. Nielsen, 922 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2019). “Dunlap was required to present his claim in the Probate Case within four months of the published notice to creditors or within 30 days of receiving actual notice of the statute's limitation periods, whichever was later.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 59-2237(a) — 2 cases
In re the Est. of Wolf, 96 P.3d 1110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 59-2237(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny person may exhibit a demand against the estate of a decedent by filing a petition for its allowance in the proper district court.”
In re the Est. of Rains, 815 P.2d 61 (Kan. 1991). “Specifically, the court held: The petition for allowance was not filed within the time fixed by law (K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 59-2237 and K.S.A. 1990 Supp.”
— K.S.A. § 59-2237(b) — 2 cases
In re the Est. of Wolf, 112 P.3d 94 (Kan. 2005). “59-2204; K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-2237(b). The majority identified the issue before it as whether the district court exceeded its statutory authority to allow certain claims to be assessed against the estate.”
In re the Est. of Wolf, 96 P.3d 1110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). “K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 59-2237(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ny person may exhibit a demand against the estate of a decedent by filing a petition for its allowance in the proper district court.”
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.