In re Estate of Lessley
506 P.3d 942
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Alma Faye Lessley died June 22, 2018; she had executed a new will on April 18, 2018 favoring her son Kris and disinheriting other children and her husband.
- Kris filed a petition to admit the will to probate on September 26, 2018 but did not attach or file the will with the court; the will was not filed until December 20, 2019 (≈18 months after death).
- Kelli Lessley (daughter and heir) objected in October 2018, asserting the will had not been filed or provided to heirs; Kris’s counsel emailed a copy to opposing counsel but did not file it or mail copies as required.
- Relevant statutes: K.S.A. 59-617 (six-month rule to admit a will), K.S.A. 59-2220 (petition requirements — will must accompany petition if producible), K.S.A. 59-618 (exception for knowingly withheld wills by non-possessing beneficiaries); local Sedgwick County administrative order required electronic filing of a copy with the petition.
- District court found the petition itself was timely but the will was not filed within six months and Kris was not an innocent beneficiary under K.S.A. 59-618; the court held the will ineffective to pass property and certified the controlling legal question for interlocutory appeal; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a petition for probate without attaching the will satisfies K.S.A. 59-617 so the will may be filed later | Kris: K.S.A. 59-617 requires only filing a petition within six months; the will itself need not be attached | Kelli: the will must be filed with the petition or otherwise filed within six months to be effective | Court: Petition alone is insufficient; the will must accompany the petition or be separately filed within six months when producible |
| Whether K.S.A. 59-618 (withheld-will exception) saves an executor who possessed the will | Kris: claimed he was an innocent beneficiary or that his retention excused late filing | Kelli: Kris had possession/knowledge and is not an innocent beneficiary; K.S.A. 59-618 therefore inapplicable | Court: K.S.A. 59-618 does not apply because Kris had knowledge and access; no exception applies |
| Whether parties’ continuances or alleged agreement to "stay" tolled the six-month filing period | Kris: parties agreed to stay/continue proceedings and engaged in mediation, so limitations should be tolled | Kelli: record shows only continuances, no court-ordered stay; statute was not tolled | Court: No judicial stay was entered; continuances do not toll the statutory six-month filing requirement |
| Whether local Sedgwick County e-filing rule conflicts with statutes | Kris: local administrative order impermissibly adds filing requirements (electronic filing) beyond statutes | Kelli: local rule is consistent with statutes and Supreme Court e-filing rules | Court: Administrative order is consistent and reasonable; electronic filing requirement does not conflict with statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Strader, 301 Kan. 50 (2014) (interpreting K.S.A. 59-618 and meaning of a will "knowingly withheld")
- In re Estate of Clare, 305 Kan. 967 (2017) (noting technical probate requirements are flexible but statutes control jurisdictional timing)
- In re Estate of Wolf, 279 Kan. 718 (2005) (statutes in pari materia should be harmonized)
- In re Marriage of Traster, 301 Kan. 88 (2014) (courts must construe statutes to avoid absurd results)
- In re Estate of O'Leary, 180 Kan. 419 (1956) (duty to offer and file a will for probate)