Court Opinion

ID: 9754363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:57:21.385163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:52.641159
License: Public Domain

Greene, C.J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent because the majority has not properly construed the statutes in question, nor have they honored clear legislative policy regarding the statutory time bar for the probate of wills. K.S.A. 59-617 establishes a statute of limitations for admitting a will to probate, and beyond that period — 6 months after death of the testator — there is only one exception for admission, and that requires a knowing withholding of the will from probate.
The key portions of the operative statute read as follows:
“Liability and effect of withholding will. Any person who has possession of the will of a testator dying a resident of this state, or has knowledge of such will and access to it for the purpose of probate, and knowingly withholds it from the district court having jurisdiction to probate it for more than six months after the death of the testator shall be liable .... Such will may be admitted to probate as to any innocent beneficiary on petition for probate by any such beneficiaiy, if such petition is filed within 90 days after such beneficiary has knowledge of such will and access to it. . . .” K.S.A. 59-618.
As this court clearly held in In re Estate of Seth, 40 Kan. App. 2d 824, 828, 196 P.3d 402 (2009), the statutory term “such will” is “a will that has been knowingly withheld from probate.” Prior cases demonstrate that where a will has not been knowingly withheld *384from probate, K.S.A. 59-617 bars admission to probate if the will is not filed within 6 months of the testator s death. See In re Estate of Thompson, 24 Kan. App. 2d 321, Syl. ¶ 1, 962 P.2d 564, rev. denied 263 Kan. 886 (1997); In re Estate of Pallister, 13 Kan. App. 2d 337, 770 P.2d 494 (1989). Where a will of the testator is found more than 6 months after his or her death, K.S.A. 59-617 bars admission, and K.S.A. 59-618 provides no exception to this statutory time bar. Our Supreme Court made this clear in In re Estate of Colyer, 157 Kan. 347, 139 P.2d 411 (1943), where it stated:
"Appellant seeks to avoid the force and effect of [59-617] by directing our attention to [59-618] and 59-621, the first of which deals with knowingly withholding a will from probate and damages consequent therefrom, and die second of which deals with the duty of the custodian of a will to deliver it to the court having jurisdiction, and penalties and damages for willful neglect or refusal to so deliver. The latter sections cannot be interpreted as an exception to the period of limitation in which an application must be made for probate of a will. The first section [59-617] deals witíi knowingly withholding so that a beneficiary does not learn of the will and consequently makes no application for its admission to probate. Its effect is to provide a penalty for the wrongful withholding, and not an exception to the time in which an application for probate must be made.” (Emphasis added.) 157 Kan. at 349.
This conclusion is also clear from the statutory language alone. The phrase “and knowingly withholds it” in K.S.A. 59-618 is intended to apply to both a person who has possession of the will and a person who has knowledge and access to such will. How do we know? If the phrase “and knowingly withholds it” were to apply only to a person with knowledge and access, there would be no need for a comma after the term “probate.” Thus, the language makes clear that the statute has application only if the will is knowingly withheld from probate by either of the two classes of persons described in the first two disjoined phrases.
Moreover, this conclusion is buttressed by the statutory title of K.S.A. 59-618: “Liability and effect of withholding will.” Although statutory titles are not definitive statements of legislative intent, the language of the title cannot be ignored as an aid in determining legislative intent. Arredondo v. Duckwall Stores, Inc., 227 Kan. 842, Syl. ¶ 2, 610 P.2d 1107 (1980). Here, the title of the statute indicates that the subject matter of K.S.A. 59-618 is the effect of *385withholding a will from probate, not a more general exception to the statutory time bar for admission to probate.
Legislative policy is reflected in K.S.A. 59-617, which forbids the admission of a will to probate more than 6 months after the death of the testator. The only exception is for a will that has been knowingly withheld from probate. Other exceptions could have been established with legislative ease, but our legislature has not chosen to make any such exceptions, and this court should not attempt to create such an exception on its own volition.
Here, the district court made a finding that “no person knowingly withheld the will from probate.” I would hold that, given this clear and undisputed finding, K.S.A. 59-618 has no application here whatsoever, and the will should not have been admitted to probate because far more than 6 months had elapsed since the testator’s death, thus requiring application of the statutory bar stated in K.S.A. 59-617.
I would reverse the district court and remand with directions to bar admission of the will to probate.