In re Dumback's Estate
| Decision Date | 06 December 1941 |
| Docket Number | 35297. |
| Citation | 154 Kan. 501,119 P.2d 476 |
| Parties | IN RE DUMBACK'S ESTATE. v. DUMBACK et al. SPLICHAL |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under Probate Code provision, no person claiming to be a creditor has any standing to petition for the appointment of an administrator of a decedent unless he has a demand which may properly be proved against administrator when appointed. Gen St.Supp.1939, 59-2239.
A creditor was not entitled to appointment of an administrator in order that creditor might establish claim against decedent's estate where appointment could not be made within one year after death of decedent and creditor could not have lawfully established his claim. Gen.St.Supp.1939 59-2209, 59-2219, 59-2221 to 59-2223, 59-2232, 59-2237.
1. Under the Kansas Probate Code no creditor shall have any claim against the property of a person dying intestate unless an administrator of the decedent's estate has been appointed within one year after his death and unless the creditor shall have exhibited his demand in the manner and within the time prescribed in the Code. G.S. 1939 Supp 59-2239.
2. Under the Kansas Probate Code no person claiming to be a creditor has any standing to petition for the appointment of an administrator of a decedent, unless he has a demand which may properly be proved against such administrator when appointed.
3. A petition for the appointment of an administrator of a decedent's estate which discloses only that petitioner is a creditor of the decedent and seeks the appointment of an administrator in order that he may prove his demand against the estate, and which petition is filed so late that in the due course of procedure as provided in the Kansas Probate Code an administrator may not be appointed until after one year after the death of the decedent, is insufficient.
Appeal from District Court, Republic County; Charles Walsh, Judge.
Frank G. Spurney, of Belleville, for appellant.
W. D Vance, Fred Emery, and Perry Owsley, all of Belleville, for appellees.
The question in this appeal, as presented in the appellant's brief, is whether a creditor of a deceased debtor made a timely application in the probate court for the appointment of an administrator in order that he might establish his claim against the decedent's estate. The question arose out of the following circumstances:
Frank Dumback, a resident of Republic County, died intestate on February 8, 1940. No proceedings for administration of his estate were instituted until February 1, 1941, when William F. Splichal filed his petition in the probate court alleging that Dumback at the time of his death on February 8, 1940, was indebted to petitioner in the sum of $116, being the balance of an account; that Dumback was possessed of real and personal property subject to the satisfaction of his debts; that Dumback was survived by his widow, Daisy, and some children whose names, ages and residences were unknown to petitioner; that he had asked the widow to pay his claim and she had refused, and petitioner asked that the estate of Frank Dumback be administered and that an administrator be appointed, "all to the end that said petitioner may properly prove his indebtedness against said estate"; and that upon the petition being filed, it be set down for hearing and that he be ordered to give notice to the widow, the heirs at law and all persons interested, of the filing of the petition and the hearing thereon.
On the filing of the petition the probate court made an order setting the hearing for February 28, 1941, and that petitioner give notice thereof. On February 6, 1941, the notice was first published in a newspaper in Republic County, and later proof of publication was filed.
On the day set for hearing the widow and children constituting the heirs at law of the decedent entered their special appearance and moved to quash the notice of hearing for the reason the petition showed on its face that more than one year had elapsed since the death of the decedent and no administrator had been appointed within the one-year period; that the petition showed that petitioner's claim was barred and no recovery could be had against decedent's estate; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brasfield's Estate, In re
...the decedent's death in order to assert a claim against his estate. They place special emphasis upon our decision in Re Estate of Dumback, 154 Kan. 501, 119 P.2d 476. We have no desire to recede from what was held in the Dumback case or in any of our other decisions of similar import. We po......
-
Gantz v. Bondurant
... ... from District Court, Ness County; Lorin T. Peters, Judge ... Action ... by Fayne Gantz, as administratrix of the estate of D. E ... Bondurant, deceased, against Melba Bondurant, to establish ... resulting trust, for possession of the land involved, for ... damages ... ...
-
Wood's Estate, In re, 44627
...death in order that he might assert the same in the manner and with the time prescribed. G.S.1943 Supp. 59-2239; In re Estate of Dumback, 154 Kan. 501, 119 P.2d 476." (p. 394, 155 P.2d p. In the final paragraph of Gebers v. Marquart, supra, the court said: 'Finally appellant urges that unde......
-
Gano Farms, Inc. v. Kleweno's Estate, 49105
...of the nonclaim statute as a special statute of limitations is found throughout the Kansas cases. See, In re Estate of Dumback, 154 Kan. 501, 119 P.2d 476 (1941); Hutchinson v. Pihlblad, 157 Kan. 392, 139 P.2d 835 (1943); Jardon v. Price, 163 Kan. 294, 297, 181 P.2d 469 (1947); In re Estate......