Printable Format59-601. Who may make will. Any person of sound mind, and possessing the rights of majority, may dispose of any or all of his or her property by will, subject to the provisions of this act.
History: L. 1939, ch. 180, ยง 37; July 1.
Source or prior law:
22-201.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Age of majority, see 38-101.
Provisions for conferring rights of majority on minors, see 38-108 to 38-110.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Formal requirements for making a will would be relaxed under proposed Uniform Probate Code, Camilla Klein Haviland, 19 K.L.R. 575, 578 (1971).
"Will Contests in Kansas," Dennis M. Feeney & Jeffery L. Carmichael, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 22, 25 (1995).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Capacity and authority to make will includes capacity and authority to name executor. In re Estate of Grattan, 155 K. 839, 130 P.2d 580.
2. Showing necessary in probate court to maintain appeal discussed and determined. In re Estate of Pallister, 159 K. 7, 32, 152 P.2d 61. (But see, 59-2404.)
3. "Will" as used in statute defined; will may be contractual in character. In re Estate of Koellen, 162 K. 395, 176 P.2d 544.
4. Admitting will to probate is one proceeding and issuing letters testamentary another. Price v. Gibson, 165 K. 10, 18, 192 P.2d 219.
5. Guardian appointed for testator; test of mental capacity to make will; rule stated. In re Estate of Hall, 165 K. 465, 466, 470, 195 P.2d 612.
6. Test of mental capacity stated and applied; evidence; testimony at former trial. In re Estate of Cross, 166 K. 318, 201 P.2d 1052.
7. Mental capacity; insane delusions; burden and sufficiency of proof; will upheld. In re Estate of Walter, 167 K. 627, 208 P.2d 262.
8. Mentioned; evidence held to establish prima facie case of due execution of will. Amerine v. Amerine, Executor, 177 K. 481, 483, 280 P.2d 601.
9. Uncontradicted evidence showing testator competent to make will cannot be disregarded by trial court. In re Estate of Winn, 191 K. 269, 273, 380 P.2d 352.
10. Cited; 59-3004 inherently requires that will be probated before it is effective for appointment for guardianship purposes. In re Guardianship of Slemp, 11 K.A.2d 156, 158, 159, 717 P.2d 519 (1986).
11. Will provision held ambiguous; returned to trial court to consider extrinsic evidence to determine intent of testator. In re Estate of Stump, 28 K.A.2d 900, 22 P.3d 161 (2001).