59-710. Special administrator; appointment; bond; duties. For good cause shown a special administrator may be appointed pending the appointment of an executor or administrator, after the appointment of an executor or administrator without removing the executor or administrator or pursuant to subsection (2) of K.S.A. 59-2239 as amended by this act. The appointment may be for a specified time, to perform duties respecting specific property, or to perform particular acts. The duties of a special administrator shall be stated in the order of appointment. The special administrator may be required to give bond in such sum as the court shall direct. Such administrator shall make such reports as the court shall direct, and shall account to the court upon the termination of his or her authority.
History: L. 1939, ch. 180, § 67; L. 1972, ch. 215, § 4; July 2.
Source or prior law:
22-315, 22-316, 22-317, 22-318, 22-319, 22-719, 22-831.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Procedure and notice required for appointment of administrator de bonis non discussed. Barrett v. McMannis, 153 Kan. 420, 423, 110 P.2d 774.
2. Construed with K.S.A. 59-708; administrator appointed hereunder cannot administer assets generally; "special administrator" and "administrator de bonis non" distinguished; notice, hearing. In re Estate of Oliver, 162 Kan. 407, 414, 176 P.2d 574.
3. Question whether "special administrator" is "administrator" under nonclaim section (59-2239) mentioned. In re Estate of Brasfield, 168 Kan. 376, 385, 214 P.2d 305.
4. "Pending the appointment . . ." construed, applied; appointment before probate proceeding commenced upheld. In re Estate of Morgans, 188 Kan. 50, 51, 53, 58, 59, 360 P.2d 1069.
5. Nonclaim statute (K.S.A. 59-2239), is statute of limitation controlling claims existing at date of tortfeasor's death. In re Estate of Wood, 198 Kan. 313, 318, 424 P.2d 528.
6. Section applied; situs of liability insurance policy is in state where located. Kent v. Chase, Special Administrator, 1 Kan. App. 2d 251, 252, 253, 563 P.2d 1103.
7. Provisions noted in applying K.S.A. 59-2239; tort claim not exhibited within statutory time; action dismissed. Gatewood v. Bosch, 2 Kan. App. 2d 474, 479, 581 P.2d 1198.
8. Cited; whether beneficiary of life insurance policy exerted undue influence to change beneficiaries on policies examined. Edens v. Laubach, 838 F. Supp. 510, 513 (1993).
9. Cited in request for 30-day extension for service of process. Finley v. Estate of DeGrazio, 285 Kan. 202, 170 P.3d 407 (2007).
|
|