Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 381
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 381.070 (2026)

Estates tail converted into estates in fee -- Limitation on

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All estates heretofore or hereafter created, which, in former times, would have been deemed estates entailed, shall henceforth be held to be estates in fee simple; and every limitation on such an estate shall be held valid, if it would be valid when limited upon an estate in fee simple. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2343.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1945–1989 · leading case: Combs v. Slone, 208 S.W.2d 304 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Combs v. Slone, 208 S.W.2d 304 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). · cites it 3× “Báiley “Hattie Bailey” KRS 381.070 provides: “All estates heretofore or hereafter created, which, in former times, would have been deemed estates entailed, shall henceforth be held to be estates in fee simple; and every limitation on such an estate shall be held valid, if it…”
Harmon v. Moss, 342 S.W.2d 528 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961). ““Entailed” is a precarious word, particularly in view of KRS 381.070 which converts entailed estates to fees.”
Bosworth v. Kilbourn, 201 S.W.2d 904 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947). “They insist that an additional and stronger reason for the use of the words was that if her will could be con *634 strued as entailing her estate, then under KRS 381.070, the estate would have been converted into a fee, and the granddaughters would have acquired a fee simple…”
Franklin Real Est. Co. v. Music, 392 S.W.2d 66 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “It is our opinion that the reference to “children” in this particular deed must be construed in the same sense as “bodily heirs” and since such terminology would have created what was once recognized as an estate-tail, which by KRS 381.070 is converted into a fee simple, Laura…”
Kentland Coal & Coke Co. v. Blankenship, 300 S.W.2d 570 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). “s to be noticed that the peculiar phrase, “her heirs after her death,” which lends support to the idea that “heirs” was used in the sense of “children,” is in the paragraph reciting the parties to the instrument, while the granting and habendum clauses are in the usual language…”
Collis v. Citizens Fid. Bank & Trust Co., 234 S.W.2d 164 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “Cox’s lifetime, creates an estate tail in Harriet which is by statute (KRS 381.070) converted into a fee simple.”
Bartley v. Potter, 334 S.W.2d 353 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960). · cites it 2× “It is argued by appellees that the use of the words “heirs of his body” or “bodily heirs,” created a common law estate tail which was, by KRS 381.070, converted into a fee simple estate.”
Bell v. Holdbrook, 187 S.W.2d 433 (Ky. Ct. App. 1945). “” When it is observed that no mention was made by the testator of his numerous living children or of his two grandchildren hereinbefore referred to, and that no limitation whatsoever was placed upon his widow’s power of disposition, it becomes at once apparent that unless we are…”
Nunn v. Wright, 197 S.W.2d 439 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). · cites it 3× “It is conceded by counsel for appellant that by the conveyance to appellees “Champ Justice Nunn has conveyed whatever interest she had, either present or future, and that these appellees step into her shoes with respect thereto.”
East Kentucky Energy Corp. v. Niece, 774 S.W.2d 458 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989). “” The Court held that a fee tail was created which by KRS 381.070 was converted to a fee simple and no ambiguity in the deed existed that would indicate the grantor intended otherwise.”
Johnson v. Houchins, 330 S.W.2d 114 (Ky. Ct. App. 1959). “KRS 381.070. The chancellor found such contrary intention from the fact that the testatrix had expressly devised life estates to her sons, and concluded that she knew how to give a life estate and had not done so in the devise to her sisters and their children; and the further…”
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.