Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 59-602 (2026)
Limitation on testamentary power
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
59-602. Limitation on testamentary power. Any devise or other disposition of real estate located in this state taking effect in possession or enjoyment at death, and any bequest or other disposition of any personal property by a resident of this state taking effect in possession or enjoyment at death, without regard to the time when the will or other instrument containing such devise, bequest or other such disposition shall have been made, to any foreign country, subdivision thereof, or city, body politic, or corporation, located therein or existing under the laws thereof, or in trust or otherwise to any trustee or agent thereof, except devises, bequests or other such dispositions to institutions created and existing exclusively for religious, educational, or charitable purposes, is hereby prohibited. Any such devise, bequest or other such disposition shall be void.
History: L. 1939, ch. 180, § 38; L. 1992, ch. 79, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 132, § 19; January 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1952–2018 · leading case: Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 843 P.2d 240 (Kan. 1992).
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 843 P.2d 240 (Kan. 1992). “1949, 59-602(2) (now K.S.A. 59-602[2]), which provides: “Either spouse may will away from the other half of his property, subject to the rights of homestead and allowances secured by statute.”
Rice v. Garrison, 898 P.2d 631 (Kan. 1995). “Alternatively, the district court held that the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) benefits were subject to the widow's right of election under K.S.A. 59-602 (Ensley); throughout this opinion the Ensley version of chapter 59 will be the applicable version.”
McCarty v. State Bank of Fredonia, 795 P.2d 940 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “33-101 and K.S.A. 59-602(2). Clarence appeals. We affirm.”
In Re the Est. of Loughmiller, 629 P.2d 156 (Kan. 1981). “The court also held the separation agreement was invalid as to consent to the will because it was not executed pursuant to K.S.A. 59-602. In addition, the court held since the parties had not been divorced and a trial court had not approved the agreement, it failed as a…”
Hessenflow v. Hessenflow, 909 P.2d 662 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “K.S.A. 59-602 (Ensley) reads in relevant part: “Neither spouse shall will away from the other more than half of his or her property, subject tó such rights and allowances, unless the other shall consent thereto in writing executed in the presence of two or more competent…”
Walnut Valley State Bank v. Stovall, 574 P.2d 1382 (Kan. 1978). “2d 133 , where we said: “It is well established in this jurisdiction that, absent fraud, one spouse may make an inter vivos transfer of his or her own personal property to another person *462 outright or to himself and another person in joint tenancy without contravening the…”
In Re Est. of Shields, 584 P.2d 139 (Kan. 1978). “By Kansas law, one spouse cannot will away from the other spouse more than one-half of his or her real estate without consent (K.S.A. 59-602). If the deceased does will away more than one-half of his or her real estate, the surviving spouse may elect to take under laws of…”
Newman Ex Rel. Ausemus v. George, 755 P.2d 18 (Kan. 1988). “Appellants argue Ackers shows the rights of a spouse who survives an intestate decedent and has not consented to a revocable trust are governed by K.S.A. 59-602(2) and K.S.A. 59-603 rather than K.”
Brown v. Gillespie, 955 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “Kan.Stat.Ann. § 59-602(2) (1991). Section 59-603, Kan.”
In Re the Est. of Sanders, 929 P.2d 153 (Kan. 1996). “Patricia notes that K.S.A. 59-602 (Ensley) and K.S.A. 59-603 (Ensley) were amended in 1992 to allow election by a surviving spouse against a will and any and all other dispositions subject to a surviving spouse’s right of election, such as a revocable trust.”
Alain Ellis Living Trust v. Harvey D. Ellis Living Trust, 427 P.3d 9 (Kan. 2018). “the district court *18 erred in failing to require the surviving spouse to file an election, and [3] if, upon remand, the surviving spouse elects to take against the will, the court should order a transfer to the estate of only that portion of the corporate stock held by the…”
In Re the Est. of Koch, 849 P.2d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “Proponents claim that no child of Mary has any right of inheritance, see K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 59-602, and, subject to 59-602, that the entire estate could have been left in any manner Mary selected.”
— K.S.A. § 59-602(2) — 8 cases
Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 843 P.2d 240 (Kan. 1992). “1949, 59-602(2) (now K.S.A. 59-602[2]), which provides: “Either spouse may will away from the other half of his property, subject to the rights of homestead and allowances secured by statute.”
McCarty v. State Bank of Fredonia, 795 P.2d 940 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). “33-101 and K.S.A. 59-602(2). Clarence appeals. We affirm.”
Rice v. Garrison, 898 P.2d 631 (Kan. 1995). “Alternatively, the district court held that the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) benefits were subject to the widow's right of election under K.S.A. 59-602 (Ensley); throughout this opinion the Ensley version of chapter 59 will be the applicable version.”
Newman Ex Rel. Ausemus v. George, 755 P.2d 18 (Kan. 1988). “Appellants argue Ackers shows the rights of a spouse who survives an intestate decedent and has not consented to a revocable trust are governed by K.S.A. 59-602(2) and K.S.A. 59-603 rather than K.”
Brown v. Gillespie, 955 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). “Kan.Stat.Ann. § 59-602(2) (1991). Section 59-603, Kan.”
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.