59-2239.
Claims against estate; time for filing; when barred.
(1) All demands, including demands of the state, against a decedent's estate, whether due or to become due, whether absolute or contingent, including any demand arising from or out of any statutory liability of decedent or on account of or arising from any liability as surety, guarantor or indemnitor, and including the individual demands of executors and administrators, shall be forever barred from payment unless the demand is presented within the later of: (a) four months from the date of first publication of notice under K.S.A. 59-2236, and amendments thereto; or (b) if the identity of the creditor is known or reasonably ascertainable, 30 days after actual notice was given, except that the provisions of the testator's will requiring the payment of a demand exhibited later shall control. No creditor shall have any claim against or lien upon the property of a decedent other than liens existing at the date of the decedent's death, unless a petition is filed for the probate of the decedent's will pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2220 and amendments thereto or for the administration of the decedent's estate pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2219 and amendments thereto within six months after the death of the decedent and such creditor has exhibited the creditor's demand in the manner and within the time prescribed by this section, except as otherwise provided by this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect or prevent the enforcement of a claim arising out of tort against the personal representative of a decedent within the period of the statute of limitations provided for an action on such claim. For the purpose of enforcing such claims, the estate of the decedent may be opened or reopened, a special administrator appointed, and suit filed against the administrator within the period of the statute of limitations for such action. Any recovery by the claimant in such action shall not affect the distribution of the assets of the estate of the decedent unless a claim was filed in the district court within the time allowed for filing claims against the estate under subsection (1) or an action commenced as provided in subsection (2) of K.S.A. 59-2238 and amendments thereto. The action may be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction and the rules of pleading and procedure in the action shall be the same as apply in civil actions. Any such special administration shall be closed and the special administrator promptly discharged when the statute of limitations for filing such actions has expired and no action has been filed or upon conclusion of any action filed. All court costs incurred in a proceeding under this subsection shall be taxed to the petitioner.
History:
L. 1939, ch. 180, § 215; L. 1972, ch. 215, § 16; L. 1976, ch. 245, § 5; L. 1976, ch. 242, § 37; L. 1985, ch. 191, § 38; L. 2004, ch. 73, § 2; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
77
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1941–2024 · leading case:
Nelson v. Nelson, 205 P.3d 715 (Kan. 2009).
Nelson v. Nelson, 205 P.3d 715 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 15× “3d 43 (2007), held the decedent’s assets were not subject to a constructive trust because a claim had not been made against the decedent’s estate within the period of limitations imposed by the Kansas nonclaim statute, K.S.A. 59-2239. Upon review of those decisions, we affirm.”
Est. of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 205 P.3d 698 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 12× “It also claimed that the limitations period under K.S.A. 59-2239 for filing estate claims had expired.”
Nelson v. Nelson, 162 P.3d 43 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 16× “Under K.S.A. 59-2239, if no petition for administration of a decedent’s estate is filed, an action against the decedent must be brought by starting administration of dece *67 dent’s estate within 6 months of the decedent’s death.”
Vorhees v. Baltazar, 153 P.3d 1227 (Kan. 2007).
· cites it 4× “59-710, which establishes an expedited procedure for administrator appointment, also fails to suggest mere filing suffices: "For good cause shown a special administrator may be appointed pending the appointment of an executor or administrator, after the appointment of an…”
Est. of Draper v. Bank of Am., N.A., 164 P.3d 827 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “Waleski Murphy and Moeller argue that the Estate's claims are time-barred due to the failure of one of the heirs to file a claim against Ethel's estate pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2239. Resolution of this matter requires us to interpret the meaning of K.”
In re the Est. of Wolf, 112 P.3d 94 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Nancy issued a notice to creditors, and M&W filed two petitions for allowance and classification of demands within the 4-month limitations period provided in the nonclaim statute, K.S.A. 59-2239. In one of the petitions, M&W sought to “purchase 333 shares of stock in Petitioner…”
Bertels v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 123 F.4th 1068 (10th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 8× “It ruled that Autumn provided no consideration for the assignment because what she promised to do and refrain from doing was already required by the Kansas nonclaim statute, K.S.A. § 59-2239, which governs claims against deceased persons and their estates.”
In re the Est. of Wolf, 96 P.3d 1110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “She argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in K.S.A. 59-2239, the nonclaim statute. Thereafter, M&W filed a “bill of costs and expenses of suit,” asserting that under the Option Agreement, it was entitled to recover attorney fees, costs, and…”
In Re the Est. of Reynolds, 970 P.2d 537 (Kan. 1998).
· cites it 5× “79,619 involves K.S.A. 59-2239 (the nonclaim statute) and the trial court’s refusal to enforce a New York court’s judgment against the estate of a Kansas decedent, James Daniel Henry Reyn *451 olds, Jr.”
Kannaday v. Ball, 234 P.3d 826 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 10× “The Estate argues as follows: Kannaday filed a claim against the Estate beyond the period set forth in K.S.A. 59-2239, the nonclaim statute. K.S.”
In Re Est. of Watson, 896 P.2d 401 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Claimant additionally filed a petition for allowance and classification of demand asking that the amount he would have received under the contractual will be deemed a third-class demand or be declared a remainder interest in the property of the estate.”
Sw. Nat'l Bank v. Est. of McDowell, 777 P.2d 826 (Kan. 1989).
· cites it 5× “The claim was filed after the expiration of the four-month period provided for by the Kansas nonclaim statute (K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 59-2239). The trial court held, based on Tulsa Collection Servs.”
— K.S.A. § 59-2239(1) — 28 cases
Nelson v. Nelson, 205 P.3d 715 (Kan. 2009).
“3d 43 (2007), held the decedent’s assets were not subject to a constructive trust because a claim had not been made against the decedent’s estate within the period of limitations imposed by the Kansas nonclaim statute, K.S.A. 59-2239. Upon review of those decisions, we affirm.”
Bertels v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 123 F.4th 1068 (10th Cir. 2024).
“It ruled that Autumn provided no consideration for the assignment because what she promised to do and refrain from doing was already required by the Kansas nonclaim statute, K.S.A. § 59-2239, which governs claims against deceased persons and their estates.”
In re the Est. of Wolf, 96 P.3d 1110 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“She argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in K.S.A. 59-2239, the nonclaim statute. Thereafter, M&W filed a “bill of costs and expenses of suit,” asserting that under the Option Agreement, it was entitled to recover attorney fees, costs, and…”
— K.S.A. § 59-2239(2) — 17 cases
Vorhees v. Baltazar, 153 P.3d 1227 (Kan. 2007).
“59-710, which establishes an expedited procedure for administrator appointment, also fails to suggest mere filing suffices: "For good cause shown a special administrator may be appointed pending the appointment of an executor or administrator, after the appointment of an…”
Nelson v. Nelson, 205 P.3d 715 (Kan. 2009).
“3d 43 (2007), held the decedent’s assets were not subject to a constructive trust because a claim had not been made against the decedent’s estate within the period of limitations imposed by the Kansas nonclaim statute, K.S.A. 59-2239. Upon review of those decisions, we affirm.”
Bertels v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 123 F.4th 1068 (10th Cir. 2024).
“It ruled that Autumn provided no consideration for the assignment because what she promised to do and refrain from doing was already required by the Kansas nonclaim statute, K.S.A. § 59-2239, which governs claims against deceased persons and their estates.”
Nelson v. Nelson, 162 P.3d 43 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
“Under K.S.A. 59-2239, if no petition for administration of a decedent’s estate is filed, an action against the decedent must be brought by starting administration of dece *67 dent’s estate within 6 months of the decedent’s death.”
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.