Printable Format58-502. Common-law rules inapplicable (rule in Shelley's case and estates tail). The rules of the common law, known as the rule in Shelley's case, and those pertaining to estates tail, however created, shall not be applied in this state to any instrument which becomes effective after the effective date of this act. Every instrument not within the purview of K.S.A. 58-503 taking effect after the effective date of this act and disposing of property which but for this section would create an estate tail shall create a life estate in the first taker and a remainder in fee in the next taker.
History: L. 1939, ch. 181, ยง 2; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Survey of Kansas Law: Taxation," Sandra Craig McKenzie and Virginia Ratzlaff, 33 K.L.R. 71, 87 (1984).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Effect of section discussed but not applied in construing deed. Foster v. Stowers, 150 K. 599, 602, 95 P.2d 343.
2. Cited but not applied; deed held not to create fee tail estate. Jonas v. Jones, 153 K. 108, 112, 109 P.2d 211.
3. Mentioned but not applied; will held not to create estate tail. Delp v. George, 158 K. 774, 775, 150 P.2d 334; Morehead v. Goellert, 160 K. 598, 599, 164 P.2d 110.
4. Mentioned in construing will executed before section effective. Wood River Oil & Refining Co. v. Madden, 169 K. 633, 638, 220 P.2d 154.
5. Instrument did not clearly show an estate tail was intended. Smith v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 173 K. 90, 95, 244 P.2d 1027.
6. Deed construed; conveyed life estate with vested remainders; "bodily heirs" construed. Waite v. Schmidt, 173 K. 353, 356, 245 P.2d 975.
7. "Heirs of body" limitation in will construed. Reetz v. Sims, 177 K. 143, 145, 147, 276 P.2d 368.
8. Language of will did not create an estate tail. Steele v. Pedroja, 178 K. 441, 445, 447, 289 P.2d 738.
9. Will found to violate the common-law rule against perpetuities and the allied rules against limitation upon alienation and unlawful accumulation; invalid provision stricken and will upheld. In re Estate of Foster, 190 K. 498, 376 P.2d 784.
10. Cited in holding Kansas probate code does not abrogate common law in state; presumption of revocation recognized. In re Estate of Mettee, 10 K.A.2d 184, 186, 694 P.2d 1325 (1985).
Judicial Council, 1939:
Many of our cases demonstrate that these rules are not suitable to titles to property in this state or to the wants and needs of our people. Here is a partial list of our cases dealing with this question: Ewing v. Nesbitt, 88 K. 708, 129 P. 1131; Busey v. Stockhoff, 88 K. 729, 129 P. 1135; Howe v. Howe, 94 K. 67, 145 P. 873; Ryan v. Cullen, 96 K. 284, 150 P. 597; Wiggins v. Powell, 96 K. 478, 152 P. 765; Bryant v. Flanner, 99 K. 472, 162 P. 280; Stevenson v. Stevenson, 102 K. 80, 169 P. 552; Grossenbacher v. Spring, 108 K. 397, 195 P. 884; Gardner v. Anderson, Trustee, 114 K. 778, 227 P. 743; 116 K. 431, 227 P. 743; Allen v. Pedder, 119 K. 773, 241 P. 696; Davis v. Davis, 121 K. 312, 246 P. 982; Wright v. Jenks, 124 K. 604, 261 P. 840; Lisman v. Marks, 126 K. 344, 267 P. 963; Farmers State Bank v. Howlett, 126 K. 610, 270 P. 605; Somers v. O'Brien, 129 K. 24, 281 P. 888; Schwarz v. Rabe, 129 K. 430, 283 P. 642; Brown v. Boone (two cases), 129 K. 786, 284 P. 436; Berthound v. McCune, 130 K. 634; 287 P. 904; Houck v. Merritt, 131 K. 151, 289 P. 431; Burnworth v. Fellerman, 131 K. 186, 289 P. 433; Blaker v. Blaker, 131 K. 833, 293 P. 517; Walker v. Row, 132 K. 564, 296 P. 699; Woodley v. Howse, 133 K. 639, 3 P.2d 475; Coughlin v. Coughlin, 135 K. 70, 9 P.2d 980; Gibbs v. Turner, 140 K. 53, 34 P.2d 564; Brann v. Hall, 141 K. 749, 43 P.2d 229; Kistler v. Fitzpatrick Mortgage Co., 146 K. 467, 71 P.2d 882; Meyer v. Meyer, 146 K. 907, 73 P.2d 1007; 147 K. 664, 78 P.2d 910; 149 K. 23, 86 P.2d 493; Coleman v. Shoemaker, 147 K. 689, 78 P.2d 905.