Butts v. Lawrence, 74397
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | Before GERNON, P.J., MARQUARDT, J., and STEPHEN D. HILL; MARQUARDT |
| Citation | 22 Kan.App.2d 468,919 P.2d 363 |
| Parties | E. Arlene BUTTS, Administratrix of the Estate of Raymond C. Butts, Jr., Appellee, v. Ramona LAWRENCE and Betty Sanders, Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 74397,74397 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1996 |
Page 363
Butts, Jr., Appellee,
v.
Ramona LAWRENCE and Betty Sanders, Appellants.
Page 364
1. An option created by will confers a right that is personal to the recipient and does not survive the death of the recipient.
2. Beneficiaries of a will may agree among themselves as to the distribution of an estate contrary to that of the will. Such agreements are referred to as family settlement agreements or will compromise agreements.
3. Family settlement agreements are favorites of the law and when fairly made are to be given liberal interpretation and should not be disturbed by those who entered into them or by those claiming under or through them.
4. To be valid, a family settlement agreement must be in writing and acknowledged
Page 365
and approved by all heirs, devisees, and legatees, and all other interested or affected persons, all of whom must be competent or authorized to enter into such agreement.5. A family settlement agreement must be submitted to and approved by the district court in order to obtain a decree of final settlement and an assignment of the real estate in accord with its provisions.
6. The rights arising from a family settlement agreement are contractual in nature and not testamentary.
7. An option to purchase real estate which is created by a family settlement agreement is contractual in nature.
8. A contract is ambiguous when the words used to express the intention of the parties may be understood to reach two or more possible meanings.
9. If a contract is not ambiguous, the court can look only to the four corners of the instrument to determine the intent of the parties.
[22 Kan.App.2d 469] 10. When a contract is not ambiguous, it would be error to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent.
Daniel M. Welch and Alan C. Goering, Topeka, for appellants.
David H. Snapp and Michael A. Doll, of Waite, Snapp & Doll, Dodge City, for appellee.
Before GERNON, P.J., MARQUARDT, J., and STEPHEN D. HILL, District Judge, assigned.
MARQUARDT, Judge:
Ramona Lawrence and Betty Sanders appeal from the district court's ruling that an option to purchase land created by a family settlement agreement in favor of Raymond C. Butts, Jr., (Raymond Jr.) could be exercised by the administratrix of the estate of Raymond Jr.
The will of Raymond C. Butts, Sr., (Raymond Sr.) devised real property (Tract 1) with a life estate to his wife, Marie L. Butts, including the power to sell and dispose of the property. Raymond Sr. devised the remainder, if any, of Tract 1 to Raymond Jr., Ramona, and Betty.
Raymond Sr.'s will provided that upon the death of his wife, the interests of Raymond Jr. in Tract 1 would be reduced by two-thirds of the then appraised value of the tract of real property which had been devised solely to Raymond Jr. (Tract 2). Raymond Sr.'s will granted Raymond Jr. a 10-year option to purchase the interests of Ramona and Betty in the portion of Tract 1 which is the subject of this appeal (Subject Property). The purchase price was to be set by an appraisal as specified in the will.
After Marie's death, the two-thirds adjustment could not be made because of a disparity in the values of the tracts. Ramona, Betty, and Raymond Jr. entered into a family settlement agreement, which provided in part:
"1. Raymond C. Butts, Jr., will Quit Claim, release and assign all right, title and interest whatsoever in and to the E/2 W/2; W/2 NE/4 and N/2 SE/4 all in S29-T32-R20; and Lots 3 and 4 and E/2 SW/4 of S30-T33S-R20; and all of Section 5-T34S-R20 [Subject Property], over unto Betty Sanders and Ramona Lawrence, [22 Kan.App.2d 470] the same to be theirs absolutely; and Betty Sanders and Ramona Lawrence waive and release any right, title and claim to two-thirds value of Section 6-T34S-R20 [Tract 2] back over unto Raymond C. Butts, Jr., his heirs or assigns.
"2. It is agreed however that Raymond C. Butts, Jr., shall have a five (5) year purchase option from date of death of Marie L. Butts to purchase Section 5-T34S-R20 [Subject Property] from Betty Sanders and Ramona Lawrence at the $74,640.00 appraised value set forth herein.
....
* * *
"4. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, assigns and successors in interest, and is the full and complete agreement between the parties to settle and close the Marie L. Butts estate." (Emphasis added.)
Raymond Jr. died without exercising his option. E. Arlene Butts, administratrix of
Page 366
Raymond Jr.'s estate (Administratrix), filed a declaratory judgment action, stating that she was entitled to exercise the option on behalf of the estate. The district court ruled that the Administratrix could exercise the option. Ramona and Betty argue that the district court erred in so ruling.This court has unlimited review as to the construction of written instruments. See Gore v. Beren, 254 Kan. 418, 427, 867 P.2d 330 (1994). When this court has before it the same written instruments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Natural Resour. v. Davis Oper. Co., 96,463.
...provisions." [Citations omitted.]' First Nat'l Bank of Olathe v. Clark, 226 Kan. 619, 624, 602 P.2d 1299 (1979)." Butts v. Lawrence, 22 Kan.App.2d 468, 473, 919 P.2d 363 See also Hall v. Mullen, 234 Kan. 1031, 1037-38, 678 P.2d 169 (1984) (same). We have also looked at the parties' subseque......
-
Robl Constr., Inc. v. Homoly, 13–3607.
...of fact which could not be resolved as a matter of law.”).Finally, even if we could consider extrinsic evidence, see Butts v. Lawrence, 22 Kan.App.2d 468, 919 P.2d 363, 367 (1996) (explaining that, absent ambiguity, it is “error to consider ... extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent”), a......
-
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Leonard, 03-01-00649-CV.
...those jurisdictions limit the examination of unambiguous contracts to the four corners of the documents. See, e.g., Butts v. Lawrence, 22 Kan.App.2d 468, 919 P.2d 363, 367 (1996); Ruble v. Reich, 259 Neb. 658, 611 N.W.2d 844, 849-50 (2000); Geo. B. Smith Chem. Works, Inc. v. Simon, 92 Nev. ......
-
Schmitendorf v. Taylor, 120,123
...them or by those claiming under or through them." In re Estate of Thompson , 226 Kan. at 441, 601 P.2d 1105 ; see Butts v. Lawrence , 22 Kan. App. 2d 468, 471, 919 P.2d 363 (1996) ; Cassity-Hauck v. Hauck , No. 120,022, 2019 WL 1497083, at *5 (Kan. App. 2019), rev. denied 310 Kan. 1061 (201......