proceeding.
(1) Any person aggrieved by the action of the District Court in admitting a will to
record or rejecting it may bring an original action in the Circuit Court of the same
county to contest the action of the District Court. Such action shall be brought
within two (2) years after the decision of the District Court. The parties may, in the
same action, or in a separate action if the validity of the will is not in issue, seek
construction, interpretation or reformation of a will.
(2) Upon filing an adversary proceeding in Circuit Court in matters involving probate
whether in a testate or intestate proceeding or an action pursuant to subsection (1) of
this section, the plaintiff shall forthwith lodge a notice of the action in the office of
the county clerk of the county in which the will was admitted to probate or rejected,
or if in an intestate estate in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the
estate was probated. Such notice shall state the name of the testator, the style of the
action, the court in which the action has been filed, the file number assigned to the
action by the clerk of the court in which it has been filed, the nature of the action,
and the date on which the action was commenced. Said notice shall be signed by
plaintiff or his attorney and no jurat shall be necessary. The county clerk shall
record and index said notice as if it were a will.
Effective: July 15, 1980
History: Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 259, sec. 12, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended
1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 515, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1976 (1st
Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 361, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1974
Ky. Acts ch. 299, sec. 9. -- Amended 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 168, sec. 13. -- Recodified
1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4850.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1942–2025 · leading case:
West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379 (Ky. 1992).
West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379 (Ky. 1992).
· cites it 17× “In March 1988, the movants filed this will contest case as an original action pursuant to KRS 394.240 et seq., and as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to KRS 418.”
Just. v. Conn, 724 S.W.2d 227 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 9× “Brenda Justice and the other appellants appeal from an order by the Floyd Circuit Court dismissing their contest of the will of Audra Boyd for failure to comply with the notice requirement in KRS 394.240(2). We disagree with the circuit court’s decision and reverse.”
Fischer v. Jeffries, 697 S.W.2d 159 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “It was incorrect, however, in its determination that the earlier proceedings in Metcalfe District Court acted as a bar to appellant’s original action filed under KRS 394.240. Regarding probate matters a district court has jurisdiction over only uncontested proceedings.”
Mullins v. First Am. Bank, 781 S.W.2d 527 (Ky. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “120(2) and (3), and KRS 394.240, which provide as follows: 24A.”
Marr v. Hendrix, 952 S.W.2d 693 (Ky. 1997).
· cites it 7× “150, and KRS 394.240. KRS 394.120 provides: Nonresident—Will of valid, when.”
Duncan v. O'NAN, 451 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
“The exclusive mode of securing a de novo trial in the circuit court in a will contest action is by appeal from the judgment of the county court that either admits the document to record or rejects it.”
Hale v. Moore, 289 S.W.3d 567 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“" Thus, it should be clear that the statutes, read together, require (1) that all proceedings for the admission to probate of a will or codicil be commenced in the district court; (2) that the district court must either admit or reject the instrument; and (8) that the district…”
Vega v. Kosair Charities Comm., Inc., 832 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” KRS 394.240(1) provides that a party may seek construction of a will in the circuit court by a separate action if the validity of the will is not in question, or by an original action in the circuit court contesting a district court’s action in admitting or rejecting a will to…”
Kiefer's Ex'r & Ex'x v. Deibel, 166 S.W.2d 430 (Ky. Ct. App. 1942).
· cites it 2× “It necessarily follows that the court also erred in directing the jury to find against the will as contestees had made out a prima facie case and the burden of going forward with the proof shifted to contestants.”
Mize v. Hughes, 994 S.W.2d 16 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “The appellants then filed a complaint pursuant to KRS 394.240 in the Trigg Circuit Court praying for an adjudication that the will had been revoked and should not be probated as the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Edward Mize.”
Webb v. Maynard, 32 S.W.3d 502 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “[[Image here]] The two year Statute of Limitations interposed by KRS 394.240 relates only to actions in which persons feel themselves aggrieved by the action of the District Court in admitting a will to record or rejecting it[,] and has no relation to an action asking for an…”
Gill v. Gill, 455 S.W.2d 545 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
“From the probate of this will appellants filed an appeal to the Oldham Circuit Court (under KRS 394.240) on July 12, 1968, alleging fraud, mental incompetency and undue influence.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 394.240(1) — 9 cases
West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379 (Ky. 1992).
“In March 1988, the movants filed this will contest case as an original action pursuant to KRS 394.240 et seq., and as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to KRS 418.”
Vega v. Kosair Charities Comm., Inc., 832 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“” KRS 394.240(1) provides that a party may seek construction of a will in the circuit court by a separate action if the validity of the will is not in question, or by an original action in the circuit court contesting a district court’s action in admitting or rejecting a will to…”
Fischer v. Jeffries, 697 S.W.2d 159 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
“It was incorrect, however, in its determination that the earlier proceedings in Metcalfe District Court acted as a bar to appellant’s original action filed under KRS 394.240. Regarding probate matters a district court has jurisdiction over only uncontested proceedings.”
Mize v. Hughes, 994 S.W.2d 16 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
“The appellants then filed a complaint pursuant to KRS 394.240 in the Trigg Circuit Court praying for an adjudication that the will had been revoked and should not be probated as the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Edward Mize.”
Webb v. Maynard, 32 S.W.3d 502 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999).
“[[Image here]] The two year Statute of Limitations interposed by KRS 394.240 relates only to actions in which persons feel themselves aggrieved by the action of the District Court in admitting a will to record or rejecting it[,] and has no relation to an action asking for an…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 394.240(2) — 3 cases
West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379 (Ky. 1992).
“In March 1988, the movants filed this will contest case as an original action pursuant to KRS 394.240 et seq., and as a declaratory judgment action pursuant to KRS 418.”
Just. v. Conn, 724 S.W.2d 227 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).
“Brenda Justice and the other appellants appeal from an order by the Floyd Circuit Court dismissing their contest of the will of Audra Boyd for failure to comply with the notice requirement in KRS 394.240(2). We disagree with the circuit court’s decision and reverse.”
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.