Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 59-606 (2026)

Execution and attestation; self-proved wills and codicils; affidavits; form

✓ current as of May 2026

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

59-606. Execution and attestation; self-proved wills and codicils; affidavits; form. Every will, except an oral will as provided in K.S.A. 59-608 and amendments thereto, shall be in writing, and signed at the end by the party making the will, or by some other person in the presence and by the express direction of the testator. Such will shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of such party by two or more competent witnesses, who saw the testator subscribe or heard the testator acknowledge the will. Such will, at the time of its execution or at any subsequent date during the lifetimes of the testator and the witnesses, may be made self-proved, and the testimony of the witnesses in the probate of the will may be made unnecessary by the acknowledgments of the will and the affidavits of the testator and the attesting witnesses. Such acknowledgments and affidavits shall be made before an officer authorized to take acknowledgments to deeds of conveyance and to administer oaths. Such acknowledgments and affidavits shall be evidenced by the certificate, with official seal affixed, of such officer attached or annexed to such will in form and contents substantially as follows:

State of ______________

County of __________ ss.

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared __________, __________, and __________, known to me to be the testator and the witnesses, respectively, whose names are subscribed to the annexed or foregoing instrument in their respective capacities, and, all of such persons being by me first duly sworn, such __________, testator, declared to me and to the witnesses in my presence that such instrument is the testator's last will and testament, and that the testator had willingly made and executed it as the testator's free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein expressed. Such witnesses, each on the witness' oath stated to me, in the presence and hearing of the testator, that the testator had declared to them that such instrument is the testator's last will and testament, and that the testator executed same as such and wanted each witness to sign it as a witness. Upon their oaths each witness stated further that they did sign the will as witnesses in the presence of each other and in the presence of the testator and at the testator's request, and that the testator at that time possessed the rights of majority, was of sound mind and under no restraint.

______________________________

(Testator)

______________________________

(Witness)

______________________________

(Witness)

Subscribed, acknowledged and sworn to before me by __________, testator, and __________ and __________, witnesses, this _____ day of __________, A.D. __________.

(seal)

(Signed) ______________________________

______________________________

(Official capacity of officer)

If an affidavit substantially in conformance with the affidavit described in this section is executed at the time of the execution of the will, no other signatures of the witnesses or any other attestation clause is required.

A self-proved will, unless contested, shall be admitted to probate without the testimony of any subscribing witness, but otherwise it shall be treated no differently than a will not self-proved. A self-proved will may be contested or be revoked, or be amended by a codicil in the same fashion as a will not self-proved. A codicil or the consent to take under the will by the spouse may be self-proved in the same manner as a will may be self-proved.

History: L. 1939, ch. 180, § 42; L. 1975, ch. 299, § 3; L. 1976, ch. 245, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 199, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 55, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1944–2021 · leading case: In Re Est. of Farr, 49 P.3d 415 (Kan. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Est. of Farr, 49 P.3d 415 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 6× “See K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 59-606. Here, the witnesses were not under oath at the time the self-proving affidavit was signed, nor did Farr specifically declare the will was his or that it was made freely or voluntarily.”

In Re the Est. of Leavey, 202 P.3d 99 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 25× “On appeal, Eggeson argues that the scrivener s initials in the lower right comer of the attestation page of the purported February 1987 will met the requirements of K.S.A. 59-606 for the will to be admitted to probate.”

In Re Est. of Petty, 608 P.2d 987 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 6× “The first point raised by the heirs on their appeal is that the will of August 17, 1976, was not properly executed and should not have been admitted to probate because the will was not properly signed at the end as required by K.S.A. 59-606, which provides as follows: "59-606.”

In Re the Est. of Broderick, 125 P.3d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-606. Puls does not challenge that portion of the district court’s decision.”

In Re the Est. of Milward, 73 P.3d 155 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 7× “Such will shall be attested and subscribed in the presence of such party by two or more competent witnesses, who saw the testator subscribe or heard the testator acknowledge the will.”

In re Est. of Moore – Gardner – Affirmed – Cowley, 390 P.3d 551 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Harvey contends it makes sense to require this higher degree of proof when challenging the capacity of a testator because a will is executed pursuant to the strict provisions and procedural protections of K.S.A. 59-606; but that higher degree of proof makes no sense for a TOD…”

In re Est. of Field, 414 P.3d 1217 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “Oborny contends that the district court's finding that the purported codicil was not signed by Field is tantamount to finding that the purported codicil was forged or fraudulent, that FHSU had the burden to show fraud by clear and convincing evidence, and that the evidence…”

Cresto v. Cresto, 358 P.3d 831 (Kan. 2015). “When a will is contested, the proponent has the initial burden of proving a prima facie case for its validity, which requires proving that the testator or testatrix had testamentary capacity and that the execution of the will complied with the requisite statutory formalities.”

In Re the Est. of Reed, 625 P.2d 447 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 3× “At the conclusion of the hearing the court found that the instrument offered for probate “does not constitute a will pursuant to K.S.A. 59-606 because it is not signed at the end or pursuant to K.”

In Re Est. of Morton, 740 P.2d 571 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 3× “The Court of Appeals reversed the district court and concluded the trusts were invalid because (1) they did not satisfy traditional trust principles; and (2) they were testamentary in *701 nature and failed to comply with the statute of wills, K.S.A. 59-606. We granted…”

Indiana Univ. Found. v. Reed, 693 P.2d 1156 (Kan. 1985). “2d 447 (1981) (Reed I), we denied original probate of the document as it did not comply with K.S.A. 59-606 or 59-609. In In re Estate of Reed, 233 Kan.”

Snodgrass v. Lyndon State Bank, 811 P.2d 58 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “When the legislature enacted the statute authorizing POD ac *550 counts in 1979, the pertinent portions of the statute read as follows: “9-1215. Contracts for payment to beneficiaries upon deposit account owners’ deaths; rights of owner during lifetime; change of beneficiary.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

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.