Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 394
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 394.210 (2026)

Attesting witness -- Effect of subsequent incompetency of or devise to

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

(1) If any person who attests the execution of a will shall, after its execution, become incompetent to be admitted as a witness to prove its execution, the will shall not, on that account, be invalid.

(2) If a will is attested by a person to whom, or to whose wife or husband, any beneficial interest in the estate is devised or bequeathed, and the will cannot otherwise be proved, such person shall be deemed a competent witness; but such devise or bequest shall be void, unless such witness would be entitled to a share of the estate of the testator if the will were not established, in which case he shall receive so much of his share as does not exceed the value of that devised or bequeathed.

(3) A will may be proved by the testimony of one (1) of the subscribing witnesses without regard to the availability or competency of the other witnesses, provided said will was acknowledged or subscribed by the testator in the presence of two (2) witnesses at the same time. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Amended 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 168, sec. 12, effective June 16, 1972. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4836.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2022 · leading case: Sarah Manoukian & Gloria Tatigian Individually & as Executrices of the Est. of Kohar Tomasian, Deceased v. John M. Tomasian, 237 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1956).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sarah Manoukian & Gloria Tatigian Individually & as Executrices of the Est. of Kohar Tomasian, Deceased v. John M. Tomasian, 237 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1956). “, Ky.Rev.Stat. § 394.210(2) (1953). 4 . The development of the doctrine from Aristotle, through Plowden, and into modern jurisprudence is well documented by Judge Frank in Usatorre v.”
Callihan v. Luster, 305 S.W.2d 530 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 3× “The second subsection provides, in part, that a beneficiary, who has attested the execution of a will under which he takes, shall be deemed a competent witness to prove it, if the will cannot otherwise be established; but such witness shall not receive what may be devised or…”
Thompson v. Hardy, 43 S.W.3d 281 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). “The fact that the jury rendered a unanimous verdict could just as easily reflect the degree of sympathy the Hardys’ counsel was able to engender for Fisher's family and the prejudice created against Thompson.”
Shoup v. Ketron, 528 S.W.2d 731 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). “If it be construed that the provision of KRS 394.210(3), to the effect that a will may be proved by the testimony of one of the witnesses, applies to proceedings in the circuit court as well as in the probate court, we are of the opinion that it does not constitute an…”
Virginia L. Jones Individually v. Teresa Chambers (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “(KRS 394.210(2)). Virginia responded, arguing that strict compliance with the statutory requirements (KRS 394.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 394.210(2): 2 cases
Sarah Manoukian & Gloria Tatigian Individually & as Executrices of the Est. of Kohar Tomasian, Deceased v. John M. Tomasian, 237 F.2d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1956). “, Ky.Rev.Stat. § 394.210(2) (1953). 4 . The development of the doctrine from Aristotle, through Plowden, and into modern jurisprudence is well documented by Judge Frank in Usatorre v.”
Virginia L. Jones Individually v. Teresa Chambers (Ky. Ct. App. 2022). “(KRS 394.210(2)). Virginia responded, arguing that strict compliance with the statutory requirements (KRS 394.”
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 394.210(3): 2 cases
Thompson v. Hardy, 43 S.W.3d 281 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). “The fact that the jury rendered a unanimous verdict could just as easily reflect the degree of sympathy the Hardys’ counsel was able to engender for Fisher's family and the prejudice created against Thompson.”
Shoup v. Ketron, 528 S.W.2d 731 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975). “If it be construed that the provision of KRS 394.210(3), to the effect that a will may be proved by the testimony of one of the witnesses, applies to proceedings in the circuit court as well as in the probate court, we are of the opinion that it does not constitute an…”
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.