Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 59-2249 (2026)

Hearing and final decree; real estate; distributive share subject to order of garnishment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

59-2249. Hearing and final decree; real estate; distributive share subject to order of garnishment. (a) On the hearing, unless otherwise ordered, the executor or administrator shall, and other persons may, be examined relative to the account and the distribution of the estate. If all the taxes payable by the estate have been paid so far as there are funds to pay them and the account is correct, it shall be settled and allowed. If the account is incorrect, it shall be corrected and then settled and allowed. Upon settlement and allowance, the court shall determine the heirs, devisees and legatees entitled to the estate and assign it to them by its decree, pursuant to the terms of the will, the laws of intestate succession in effect on the date of the decedent's death or a valid settlement agreement. The decree shall name the heirs, devisees and legatees; describe the property; and state the proportion or part thereof to which each is entitled. The decree shall be binding as to all the estate of the decedent, whether specifically described in the proceedings or not. In the estate of a testate decedent, no heirs need be named in the decree unless they have, as such, an interest in the estate.

(b) When the final decree includes real estate, such decree, or a certified copy of it, may be entered on the transfer record of the county clerk of the proper county. When any such decree which includes real estate shall become final, it shall be the duty of the court to transmit a certified copy of it to the county clerk and the county clerk shall enter it on the transfer record in the clerk's office.

(c) If any person entitled to receive a distributive share of an estate pursuant to a decree hereunder is the defendant in a garnishment action or proceeding in which the executor or administrator of the estate is the garnishee, the person's distributive share shall be subject to the order of garnishment served upon the executor or administrator, and no property or funds of the estate shall be delivered or paid over to the person until further order of the court from which the order of garnishment was issued.

History: L. 1939, ch. 180, § 225; L. 1949, ch. 314, § 1; L. 1972, ch. 222, § 16; L. 1976, ch. 242, § 39; L. 1985, ch. 191, § 39; L. 1989, ch. 174, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 198, § 3; L. 2000, ch. 76, § 4; L. 2010, ch. 44, § 22; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1947–2022 · leading case: Rector v. Tatham, 196 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rector v. Tatham, 196 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 5× “The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that K.S.A. 59-2249(a) permitted only three ways to distribute a decedent’s estate: by will, by intestate succession, or by valid K.”

In Re the Est. of Leathers, 876 P.2d 619 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “) Although the statutory scheme does not state that a valid settlement agreement is the exclusive means of entering into an *804 enforceable family settlement agreement, such is implied in K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 59-2249. That provision states in part: “Upon settlement and allowance,…”

Matter of Est. of Beason, 811 P.2d 848 (Kan. 1991). “59-2401[15]), which permits appeals from determinations that a person is or is not an heir, devisee, or legatee, although normally this determination would be made as a part of a K.S.A. 1990 Supp. 59-2249 final decree.) At the hearing on construction of the will, Caroline was…”

In re the Est. of Wise, 890 P.2d 744 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “K.S.A. 59-2249; Brent v. McDonald, 180 Kan.”

In Re the Est. of Newland, 730 P.2d 351 (Kan. 1986). “) Appellant also cites K.S.A. 59-2249, which provides that the administrator may be examined relative to the account at the final hearing and K.”

In Re the Est. of Duncan, 638 P.2d 992 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “A final decree that assigns property in the general terms of the will does not comply with the intent of the statute, now K.S.A. 59-2249, where it leaves in doubt the precise nature and extent of the interest or title thus assigned.”

Butts v. Lawrence, 919 P.2d 363 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “2d 619 (1994). “A family setdement agreement must be submitted to and approved by the district court in order to obtain a decree of final setdement and an assignment of die real estate in accord with its provisions.”

Asendorf v. (John F. Asendorf, 176 P.2d 535 (Kan. 1947). · cites it 2× “Section 59-2249 provides for a hearing and final decree on the foregoing petition.”

McVey v. Pfingston, 593 P.2d 1014 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “A final decree in a probate proceeding “shall name the heirs, devisees, and legatees, describe the property, and state the proportion or part thereof to which each is entitled.”

In re the Est. of Petesch, 62 P.3d 674 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “He argues that since this provision directs that the executor s account “shall be settled and allowed,” the court must award all requested fees and expenses so long as the executor actually expended the claimed time and money.”

Adams v. Adams, 602 P.2d 115 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979). “Furthermore, K.S.A. 59-2249 (Corrick, 1964) states: “The decree shall name the heirs, devisees, and legatees, describe the property, and state the proportion or part thereof to which each is entitled.”

In re Est. of James (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 59-2249 permits the trial court to distribute an estate under a will, the laws of intestate succession, or a valid settlement agreement.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 59-2249(a) — 2 cases

Rector v. Tatham, 196 P.3d 364 (Kan. 2008). “The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that K.S.A. 59-2249(a) permitted only three ways to distribute a decedent’s estate: by will, by intestate succession, or by valid K.”

In re Est. of James (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 59-2249 permits the trial court to distribute an estate under a will, the laws of intestate succession, or a valid settlement agreement.”

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.