Printable Format59-610. Revocation by marriage, birth or adoption; divorce. If after making a will the testator marries and has a child, by birth or adoption, the will is thereby revoked. If after making a will the testator is divorced, all provisions in such will in favor of the testator's spouse so divorced are thereby revoked.
History: L. 1939, ch. 180, ยง 46; July 1.
Source or prior law:
22-240.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Survey of decedents' estates, Frank Diehl, 15 W.L.J. 358, 360 (1976).
"Wills: Testator's Divorced Spouse Deemed to Have Predeceased Testator," Robert E. Nelson, 15 W.L.J. 509, 510, 511 (1976).
"Barring the Slayer's Bounty: An Analysis of Kansas' Troubled Experience," John F. Kuether, 23 W.L.J. 494, 521 (1984).
"Refusing to Visit the Sins of the Father upon the Daughter: An Interpretation of the Kansas Slayer Statute," Anthony Martin Singer, 37 W.L.J. 229 (1997).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Nuncupative will cannot revoke or alter prior written will. In re Estate of Grattan, 157 K. 116, 119, 138 P.2d 497.
2. Cited; obliterated paragraph in will; effect; admitted to probate, when. In re Estate of Johannes, 170 K. 407, 411, 227 P.2d 148.
3. Discussed; will with pencil markings through beneficiaries' names not revoked. In re Estate of Grisell, 176 K. 209, 212, 270 P.2d 285.
4. Mentioned; failure of codicil to mention prior codicil; no revocation effected. In re Estate of Heilig, 211 K. 608, 609, 506 P.2d 1147.
5. Construction of remaining parts of will where certain provisions revoked by divorce; rules applied. Russell v. Estate of Russell, 216 K. 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 534 P.2d 261.
6. Validity of will bequeathing personal property depends on law of testator's domicile at death. In re Trust Estate of Rivas, 233 K. 898, 901, 666 P.2d 691 (1983).
7. Slayer's minor child may inherit or take under grandparents' will; slayer's share passes as if slayer predeceased testators. In re Estate of Van Der Veen, 262 K. 211, 220, 935 P.2d 1042 (1997).
8. Will revoked upon remarriage and adoption of child was revived by subsequent codicil to which appellant spouse consented; in terrorem provision will be upheld against her as no probable cause exists for her challenge to validity of will. In re Estate of Wells, 26 K.A.2d 282, 287, 983 P.2d 279 (1999).