When the proceeding is taken to the Circuit Court, all necessary parties shall be brought
before the court by the plaintiff. The final decision given shall, subject to appeal to the
Court of Appeals, be a bar to any other proceeding calling the probate or rejection of the
will in question. This section does not preclude a court of justice from its jurisdiction to
impeach such final decision for any reason that would give it jurisdiction over any other
judgment at law.
Effective: July 15, 1980
History: Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 259, sec. 13, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended
1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 115, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1976 (1st
Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 363, effective January 2, 1978. -- Recodified 1942
Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 4859.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1955–1992 · leading case:
West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379 (Ky. 1992).
West v. Goldstein, 830 S.W.2d 379 (Ky. 1992).
· cites it 4× “The present case involves at most a claim of procedural default which, assuming such exists at all, is similar in character to that in Justice v. Conn . We turn now to whether the trial court erred.”
Strother v. Day, 279 S.W.2d 785 (Ky. Ct. App. 1955).
· cites it 2× “It is: “This section does not preclude a court of , equity from its jurisdiction to impeach such final decision for any reason that would give it jurisdiction over any other judgment at law.”
Second Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First Sec. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 398 S.W.2d 50 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965).
“The appellants contend that they were entitled to a jury trial or at least to take further testimony, citing KRS 394.260, which directs the impaneling of a jury on demand to determine whether any testamentary paper is or is not the will of the testatrix.”
Shoup v. Ketron, 528 S.W.2d 731 (Ky. Ct. App. 1975).
“KRS 394.260, in setting forth the “Proceedings in circuit court,” provides that a jury (or the court) shall “ * * * try whether, or how much of, any testamentary paper produced is, or is not, the last will of the testator.”
Second Nat'l Bank of Ashland v. Thomson, 455 S.W.2d 51 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970).
“In circuit court all interested persons must be made parties (KRS 394.260). Apparently the legislature intended that the county court would merely conduct a hearing on the question of the execution of the will, but when the question reaches the circuit court, the real battle…”
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.