In Kansas, the determination of whether a document constitutes a valid will involves several statutory requirements. A holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting, is valid in Kansas if it is signed by the testator. This is a specific exception to the general rule requiring attestation by two witnesses for non-holographic wills. The Kansas Probate Code, specifically K.S.A. 59-606, addresses holographic wills. The key is that the entire will, including the dispositive provisions and the testator’s signature, must be in the testator’s handwriting. If any material part of the will is not in the testator’s handwriting, it will not be considered a valid holographic will. The scenario describes a document that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and is signed by the testator. Therefore, it meets the requirements for a valid holographic will in Kansas, even without witnesses.

The Kansas Uniform Trust Code, specifically K.S.A. § 58a-406, addresses the modification of a trust. A trust can generally be modified by the settlor if the trust instrument expressly permits it. If the trust instrument does not expressly reserve the power to modify, then modification typically requires the consent of all beneficiaries whose interests are affected, or court approval. In this scenario, the trust instrument does not contain any provisions allowing for its modification by the settlor alone. Therefore, the settlor cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the trust. To modify the trust, the settlor would need to obtain the consent of all beneficiaries whose interests would be materially affected by the proposed changes, or seek judicial intervention to approve the modification. Without either of these actions, the trust remains irrevocable and unamodable by the settlor’s sole discretion. The core principle here is the irrevocability of trusts unless a power of revocation or modification is expressly retained by the settlor in the trust document or through other statutory means such as consent of all beneficiaries or court order.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is not recognized as a valid form of testamentary disposition in Kansas. Kansas law, specifically K.S.A. 59-606, outlines the requirements for a valid will. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and attested to by two or more competent witnesses who sign the will in the presence of the testator. Holographic wills, meaning those written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, are not explicitly permitted by Kansas statute, unlike in some other states. Therefore, Bartholomew’s purported holographic will, even if clearly demonstrating his intent and witnessed by his friend, would be deemed invalid in Kansas. The existence of a prior validly executed will would then control the disposition of Bartholomew’s estate. The concept of a “nuncupative will” (oral will) is also governed by strict statutory requirements in Kansas, generally limited to specific circumstances and requiring attestation, and would not apply here either. The crucial element for validity in Kansas is adherence to the statutory formalities for written wills, which a holographic document, by its nature, may not satisfy if not also executed with the required witness attestation.

The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted in Kansas, addresses the issue of a trustee’s duty to inform and report to beneficiaries. Specifically, K.S.A. § 58a-813 outlines the trustee’s obligations concerning notice of judicial proceedings. This statute requires that a trustee must give notice of a judicial proceeding concerning the trust to every interested person. An interested person is defined under K.S.A. § 58a-103(11) as a person whose claim or interest in the trust is affected by the proceeding. In this scenario, Elara, as a contingent beneficiary, has a vested interest in the trust’s assets that will become possessory if the current beneficiaries predecease the settlor. Therefore, any judicial proceeding that could potentially alter the trust’s administration or distribution, such as a petition for modification or termination, directly impacts her contingent interest. K.S.A. § 58a-813 mandates notification of such proceedings to all interested parties, including contingent beneficiaries whose interests are ascertainable. The trustee’s failure to notify Elara of the petition to modify the trust constitutes a breach of the duty to inform and report, as her contingent interest is a claim that is affected by the proceeding. The relevant statute for the definition of an interested person is K.S.A. § 58a-103(11), and the duty to notify of judicial proceedings is found in K.S.A. § 58a-813.

The Kansas Uniform Trust Code, specifically K.S.A. § 58a-401, governs the requirements for a trust to be valid. A trust is created when the settlor has capacity to create a trust, manifests an intention to create a trust, a definite trustee who has all the necessary powers, a definite beneficiary or class of beneficiaries, and a trust property. The question specifies that Ms. Albright intended to create a trust for the benefit of her grandchildren and designated a specific piece of real estate in Wichita, Kansas, as the trust corpus. However, the critical missing element is the designation of a trustee. Without a trustee, the trust cannot be administered or managed according to its terms. While the intention and corpus are present, the absence of a trustee prevents the trust from satisfying the statutory requirements for creation under Kansas law. Therefore, the trust is invalid due to the lack of a designated trustee.

In Kansas, the Uniform Trust Code, adopted in K.S.A. Chapter 58a, governs the administration of trusts. A key aspect of trust administration involves the duty of loyalty owed by a trustee to the beneficiaries. This duty requires the trustee to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries. A trustee generally cannot engage in self-dealing. Self-dealing occurs when a trustee enters into a transaction with the trust that benefits the trustee personally, rather than solely the beneficiaries. For instance, a trustee selling trust property to themselves, even at a fair market price, is typically considered a breach of the duty of loyalty. However, the Uniform Trust Code, specifically K.S.A. 58a-802, allows for certain exceptions. If the trust instrument expressly permits certain transactions that might otherwise be considered self-dealing, or if the trustee obtains court approval, such transactions may be permissible. Without such authorization or approval, a transaction where a trustee purchases trust property for their own account, even if the price is deemed fair, constitutes a breach of the duty of loyalty and is voidable by the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries have recourse to seek remedies for such breaches, including removal of the trustee and recovery of any losses.

In Kansas, the Uniform Principal and Income Act (UPIA), adopted as K.S.A. § 58a-101 et seq., governs the allocation of receipts and expenses between income beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries of a trust. When a trustee receives a distribution from a business entity, the determination of whether it constitutes principal or income depends on the nature of the distribution and the entity’s classification. A distribution of ordinary cash dividends from a corporation is generally considered income. However, if the distribution is characterized as a liquidating dividend, it is typically allocated to principal because it represents a return of capital rather than earnings. Similarly, stock dividends are usually allocated to principal, unless the trust instrument specifies otherwise or the distribution is in lieu of an ordinary cash dividend. For a closely held business interest, the trustee must exercise judgment, often considering whether the distribution is an ordinary course of business operation or a change in the fundamental nature of the investment. Under K.S.A. § 58a-401, a trustee shall allocate an income receipt or disbursement to principal if and to the extent that the act requires or permits the trustee to do so. However, K.S.A. § 58a-401(b)(2) states that a trustee shall allocate to income an income receipt or disbursement to the extent that the entity dimaksud to distribute to a trustee the net income of the entity’s business. Therefore, if the distribution from the closely held business is a customary quarterly dividend representing profits, it would be income. If it is a distribution of assets upon liquidation of the business, it would be principal. Without specific information indicating the distribution is a return of capital or a liquidating event, the default under Kansas law is to treat ordinary distributions from a business as income if they represent profits.

In Kansas, the concept of “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in the will. Kansas law, specifically K.S.A. 59-610, outlines the rights of such heirs. Generally, if a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the will’s execution, that child receives a share of the estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. The statute does not require a specific monetary amount to be left to the child; even a nominal bequest can prevent the child from being considered pretermitted. However, if the will makes no provision and gives no indication of intentional omission, the pretermitted heir is entitled to a share. This share is typically calculated based on what the child would have received had the testator died without a will, after accounting for any specific bequests and the spouse’s elective share, if applicable. The pretermitted heir’s share is usually satisfied from the residue of the estate. If the residue is insufficient, it can be taken from the beneficiaries in proportion to their respective interests. This ensures that children born after the will’s creation are not inadvertently disinherited due to the testator’s oversight.

The Kansas Uniform Trust Code, specifically K.S.A. § 58a-406, addresses the modification or termination of a trust. Under this statute, a trustee may modify a trust if all beneficiaries consent and the modification does not frustrate a material purpose of the trust. Alternatively, a trust can be terminated if all beneficiaries consent and the court concludes that the continuance of the trust is not necessary to continue any material purpose. In this scenario, the trust instrument clearly states the settlor’s intent to provide for the ongoing education of the beneficiaries, which constitutes a material purpose of the trust. Even though both beneficiaries are adults and agree to terminate the trust to receive the remaining corpus outright, terminating the trust would directly contravene this stated material purpose. Therefore, the trustee cannot unilaterally modify or terminate the trust without court approval, and court approval would likely be denied because the termination would frustrate the settlor’s clearly expressed material purpose. The trustee’s duty is to administer the trust according to its terms, and the material purpose of providing for education remains relevant as long as there is a reasonable expectation of future educational needs or expenses for the beneficiaries, or if the trust’s terms anticipate continued educational support.

The core issue here revolves around the concept of an after-acquired property clause in a Kansas will and its effect on the distribution of assets not owned by the testator at the time of executing the will. Kansas law, like many jurisdictions, generally upholds such clauses, allowing a will to pass property acquired by the testator after the will’s creation. However, the interpretation and application can be nuanced. In this scenario, the specific language of Elias’s will is crucial. If the will contains a broad “after-acquired property” clause, it would likely encompass the inherited farmland. The will’s intent, as expressed through its language, is paramount in determining how such assets are distributed. The principle of testamentary intent guides the court’s interpretation. If the will clearly indicates a desire to distribute all property owned at death, regardless of when acquired, then the farmland would pass according to the will’s terms. The alternative, intestacy, would only apply if the will’s provisions were insufficient or void regarding the after-acquired property. Given the specific wording “all property which I may own at the time of my death,” this clause is generally interpreted to include assets acquired post-execution. Therefore, the farmland would be distributed according to the residuary clause of Elias’s will, which designates the entirety of his remaining estate to his niece, Clara.

The Kansas Uniform Trust Code, specifically K.S.A. § 58a-406, addresses the revocation and amendment of trusts. A trust is generally irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly provide that it is revocable. If a trust is revocable, it can be amended or revoked by the settlor. The method of amendment or revocation is typically specified within the trust instrument itself. However, if the trust instrument does not specify a method, or if it specifies a method that is not feasible, the trust can be amended or revoked by any other method that clearly manifests the settlor’s intent to amend or revoke the trust. This includes a later will, if the trust instrument permits revocation or amendment by will, or by a separate writing signed by the settlor. The key principle is that the settlor’s intent must be clear and unequivocal. In this scenario, the trust instrument explicitly stated that it could only be amended by a written instrument signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee. Agnes’s oral declaration to her attorney, even if witnessed, does not meet this requirement. Her holographic will, while a valid testamentary instrument in Kansas (K.S.A. § 59-609 for holographic wills, though trusts are governed by the UTC), does not serve as a valid amendment mechanism unless the trust instrument specifically allowed for amendment by will, which it did not. Therefore, Agnes’s attempted amendment was ineffective because it did not comply with the method prescribed by the trust instrument. The trust remains in its original form, and its terms will govern the distribution of assets.

The Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, adopted in Kansas, governs disclaimers of property. A disclaimer is a refusal to accept an interest in property. For a disclaimer to be effective under Kansas law, it is generally required to be in writing, describe the interest being disclaimed, be signed by the disclaimant or their representative, and be delivered to the transferor or their representative, or the holder of legal title to the property. Furthermore, the disclaimant must not have accepted the interest or any of its benefits prior to executing the disclaimer. In this scenario, Ms. Albright’s verbal refusal to accept the inherited farmland in Kansas, without any written documentation or delivery to the executor of her late aunt’s estate, fails to meet the statutory requirements for a valid disclaimer under Kansas law. The Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, K.S.A. 58-1401 et seq., emphasizes these formal requirements to ensure clarity and prevent fraudulent or ineffective attempts to avoid property interests. A verbal disclaimer, especially concerning real property, is insufficient to divest ownership. The failure to comply with the statutory formalities means Ms. Albright is still considered the owner of the farmland, and it would be subject to her creditors.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a type of will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Kansas law, specifically K.S.A. 59-606, addresses holographic wills. For a will to be considered valid in Kansas, it must be entirely in the handwriting of the testator and signed by the testator. The will does not require any witnesses. In this case, the document is entirely in Elias Thorne’s handwriting and bears his signature. Therefore, it meets the statutory requirements for a holographic will in Kansas. The fact that it was found in a locked safe deposit box is relevant to its custody and authenticity but does not affect its validity as a holographic will. The other options are incorrect because they describe requirements for different types of wills or introduce elements not present in the scenario. A will requiring witnesses is a formal witnessed will, not a holographic one. The presence of a notary’s seal, while often associated with wills, is not a requirement for a holographic will in Kansas. A will that is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting would be considered a formal will and would require witnesses.

The Kansas Uniform Trust Code, specifically K.S.A. § 58a-411, addresses the duty of a trustee to keep beneficiaries informed. This statute outlines the information a trustee must provide to qualified beneficiaries. Qualified beneficiaries are defined in K.S.A. § 58a-103(12) as beneficiaries entitled to income or corpus distribution, and those who would be entitled if all current beneficiaries died or the trust terminated. The statute mandates that within 60 days after the trust’s creation or a trustee’s appointment, the trustee must provide the qualified beneficiaries with the trustee’s name and address, and the time allowed for commencing a judicial proceeding to contest the validity of the trust. Annually, or more frequently if reasonable, the trustee must also provide a report of the trust property, liabilities, receipts, and disbursements, including the source and amount of the trustee’s compensation and a statement of the manner in which the trustee has exercised the trustee’s fiduciary powers. This duty to inform is fundamental to ensuring transparency and accountability in trust administration. The question probes the specific timing and content of the initial notification requirement for a trustee in Kansas.

In Kansas, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is addressed by K.S.A. § 59-610. This statute provides protection for children born or adopted after a will is executed, who are not provided for in the will and for whom no provision is made by the testator’s other property. If a testator has a child born or adopted after the execution of their will, and that child is neither provided for in the will nor in any other way by the testator, the testator is deemed to have died intestate as to that child. This means the child inherits as if there were no will, receiving the same share they would have received if the testator had died without a will. The purpose is to prevent accidental disinheritance of children who were not in existence or not yet part of the family at the time the will was drafted. It is crucial to note that this protection does not apply if the child is provided for in the will, or if other evidence indicates the testator intended to disinherit the child, such as a specific statement in the will or a transfer of property outside the will intended to be in lieu of a testamentary provision. The statute presumes that the testator would have provided for such a child had they been alive and aware of the child’s existence at the time of will execution.

In Kansas, a holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed, is generally valid without attestation by witnesses, provided it meets the specific requirements of K.S.A. 59-606. This statute permits a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator to be admitted to probate without further proof of its execution. This is a significant exception to the general rule requiring two witnesses for a valid will in Kansas, as outlined in K.S.A. 59-602. The rationale behind this exception is that the testator’s handwriting itself serves as evidence of its authenticity, reducing the risk of forgery or undue influence that witness attestation is designed to prevent. Therefore, if a will is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed, it is valid in Kansas even if no witnesses are present.

The Kansas Uniform Trust Code, specifically K.S.A. § 58a-401, addresses the requirements for the creation of a trust. A trust is generally created by a settlor who has capacity to create a trust and manifests an intention to create a trust. For a trust to be valid, it must have a definite trustee, an ascertainable trust property, and a definite beneficiary. However, K.S.A. § 58a-402 clarifies that a trust may be created by a will, or by a declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds the property as trustee. The key element here is the manifestation of intent to create a trust. A statement of intent to make a gift in the future, or a general expression of desire for property to be managed for another’s benefit without specifying the terms of management, the trustee, or the property, does not create a trust. The document provided to Mr. Abernathy, while expressing a desire for his assets to benefit his grandchildren, lacks the specificity required to establish a trust under Kansas law. It does not name a trustee, identify specific trust property, or outline the terms and conditions of the intended benefit. Therefore, without these essential elements, no valid trust is created by this document alone.

In Kansas, the determination of whether a document constitutes a valid holographic will hinges on specific statutory requirements. A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator in their own handwriting. There is no requirement for witnesses to attest to the testator’s signature or the contents of the will. This is a key distinction from attested wills, which require witnesses. The Kansas Probate Code, specifically K.S.A. 59-606, addresses the validity of wills, including those not executed with the formality of attesting witnesses, provided they are wholly in the handwriting of the testator. The scenario presented involves a document that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting, contains a date, and is signed by the testator. Therefore, it meets the statutory definition of a holographic will in Kansas and is admissible to probate. The presence of a specific bequest of a vintage automobile to a niece and the residual estate to a son are substantive provisions that would be given effect if the will is deemed valid. The question tests the understanding of the specific requirements for holographic wills in Kansas, differentiating them from attested wills and emphasizing the importance of the testator’s handwriting for the entirety of the document.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Eleanor Vance, executed a will in Kansas. Subsequently, she acquired additional real property in Missouri. Kansas law, specifically Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) § 59-606, addresses the effect of a will on after-acquired property. This statute generally provides that a will shall be construed to pass all property which the testator owned at the time of death, including property acquired after the execution of the will, unless a contrary intention appears from the will. This principle is consistent with the Uniform Probate Code, which many states, including Kansas, have adopted in some form. Therefore, Eleanor’s will, executed in Kansas, would typically cover property she owned at her death, regardless of when it was acquired, provided the will does not express a contrary intent. The location of the property in Missouri does not alter the fundamental principle of how a will disposes of after-acquired assets, as long as the will is validly executed according to Kansas law and the probate process in Missouri will recognize its validity. The key is the testator’s intent as expressed in the will and the governing law of the domicile at the time of execution and death.

In Kansas, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by two witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The concept of “testamentary capacity” is crucial; the testator must have had the mental capacity to understand the nature and extent of their property, the natural objects of their bounty, and the disposition they were making of their property. A will procured by undue influence or fraud may be invalidated. Undue influence occurs when a person in a position of trust or confidence exerts improper pressure that overcomes the free will of the testator, causing them to make a disposition they would not otherwise have made. The standard for undue influence is high, requiring more than mere persuasion or advice. The influence must be substantial and directly result in the testamentary disposition. For a will to be admitted to probate in Kansas, it must meet these statutory requirements, and any challenges based on lack of capacity or undue influence are evaluated based on the evidence presented regarding the testator’s state of mind and the circumstances surrounding the will’s execution. The burden of proof for establishing undue influence typically rests with the party challenging the will.

In Kansas, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is governed by K.S.A. § 59-610. A pretermitted heir is a child of the testator who is born or adopted after the execution of the testator’s will, and who is not provided for in the will, nor in the testator’s lifetime mentioned to the testator’s satisfaction. If such a child exists and is not provided for, they are entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, meaning as if there were no will. This share is taken from the portions of the estate that would have passed to the devisees named in the will. The law aims to prevent accidental disinheritance. The testator can, however, explicitly disinherit a child, even one born after the will’s execution, by clearly stating this intention in the will. The critical factor is whether the child was born or adopted *after* the will was made and whether the will makes any provision or mention of such a future child. In this scenario, the testator executed the will on May 1, 2020, and the child, Elara, was born on July 15, 2021, which is after the will’s execution. The will makes no mention of any future children or provides any specific bequest for them. Therefore, Elara qualifies as a pretermitted heir under Kansas law. Her intestate share will be determined based on the Kansas statutes governing intestacy, which generally means she would inherit a portion of the estate. The will’s residuary clause devising the remainder to the testator’s spouse does not override the pretermitted heir statute because the statute specifically addresses children born or adopted after the execution of the will. The spouse’s share would be reduced to accommodate Elara’s statutory inheritance.

The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted in Kansas, generally prohibits the revocation or amendment of a trust by a provision in the settlor’s will unless the trust instrument itself expressly permits it. Kansas Statute § 58a-411 specifically addresses the effect of a settlor’s will on a revocable trust. It states that a settlor may revoke or amend a revocable trust by a will only if the terms of the trust instrument explicitly permit revocation or amendment by will. In this scenario, the trust instrument for the Evergreen Trust does not contain any language indicating that it can be revoked or amended by the settlor’s will. Therefore, the provision in Agnes’s will attempting to revoke the Evergreen Trust is ineffective. The trust remains in existence as originally established, and its terms will govern the disposition of its assets, independent of Agnes’s will. This principle is crucial for ensuring the integrity and predictability of trust administration, preventing unintended alterations to trust provisions through a separate testamentary document that may not have been intended to interact directly with the trust’s core terms.

In Kansas, a will contest action typically involves challenging the validity of a will. The primary grounds for contesting a will include lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, or improper execution. Testamentary capacity requires the testator to understand the nature and extent of their property, the natural objects of their bounty, and the disposition they are making of their property. Undue influence involves the exertion of improper pressure or control over the testator that overcomes their free will, causing them to make a will they otherwise would not have made. Fraud occurs when the testator is deceived into making a will or including certain provisions. Duress involves coercion or threats that force the testator’s compliance. Improper execution relates to failing to adhere to the statutory requirements for signing and witnessing the will, as outlined in Kansas statutes, such as K.S.A. § 59-606. The explanation of the scenario involves evaluating whether Elara’s actions constituted undue influence. Elara, as the sole caregiver and beneficiary, had a significant opportunity to exert influence. The fact that the will was drafted shortly before Bartholomew’s death, coupled with Bartholomew’s documented decline in cognitive function and increasing reliance on Elara, raises suspicion. While Bartholomew’s appreciation for Elara’s care is a valid consideration, the totality of the circumstances, including the drastic change in his testamentary plan and the potential for Elara to have isolated him from other family members, suggests a strong possibility of undue influence. The critical element is whether Elara’s influence supplanted Bartholomew’s own volition. The fact that Bartholomew had previously executed a will with a different distribution plan and that Elara was the sole beneficiary of the new will, while other natural objects of his bounty were excluded, further supports the claim of undue influence.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a will entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Kansas law, specifically Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) § 59-606, addresses holographic wills. For a will to be considered holographic and valid in Kansas, it must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator. The key issue here is the presence of a digital signature on a document that is otherwise handwritten. A digital signature, by its nature, is not handwritten by the testator in the traditional sense, even if it is applied through a device operated by the testator. The statute requires the *entire* will to be in the testator’s handwriting. Therefore, the inclusion of a digital signature, which is not a handwritten mark, would likely render the holographic will invalid in Kansas because it fails the “entirely written” requirement of KSA § 59-606. The will must be signed by the testator’s own hand. While a testator can sign a will using various methods, the statute’s emphasis on “entirely written” and the common understanding of a handwritten signature in the context of holographic wills implies a physical, handwritten mark. A digital signature does not meet this criterion.

The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted in Kansas, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, K.S.A. § 58a-816 addresses the liability of a trustee. This statute outlines when a trustee is personally liable for a breach of trust. A trustee is generally not personally liable for torts committed in the course of administering a trust if the trustee was not personally at fault. However, if the trustee’s negligence directly caused the injury, then personal liability can attach. In this scenario, the trustee, Ms. Anya Sharma, was operating a trust-owned vehicle when she negligently caused an accident. The trust itself is an entity that can be sued for torts committed by its agents or employees acting within the scope of their employment. However, the question focuses on the trustee’s personal liability. Under K.S.A. § 58a-816(b), a trustee is personally liable for torts committed during the administration of the trust if the trustee is personally at fault. Since Ms. Sharma’s negligent driving directly caused the accident and the resulting injuries to Mr. Elias Thorne, she is personally liable for those damages. The trust’s insurance policy would typically cover such liabilities, but the statute permits direct action against the trustee if personally at fault. The trust’s ability to indemnify the trustee is a separate matter from the trustee’s initial personal liability to the injured party. Therefore, Ms. Sharma is personally liable for the damages suffered by Mr. Thorne due to her negligent operation of the trust vehicle.

In Kansas, the doctrine of equitable conversion treats real property as personal property and personal property as real property for certain purposes, particularly in the context of a contract for the sale of land. When a valid contract for the sale of real estate is executed, and the vendor (seller) has an enforceable right to the purchase price, and the vendee (buyer) has an enforceable right to the property, equitable conversion occurs. This means that, in equity, the buyer is considered the owner of the real property from the moment the contract is signed, and the seller is considered the owner of the personal property (the right to receive the purchase price). This doctrine is significant in determining how property is treated for purposes of inheritance, creditors’ rights, and insurance. If the seller dies after the contract is signed but before the closing, the real property passes as personal property to their heirs or beneficiaries under their will, and the purchase money becomes part of their personal estate. Conversely, if the buyer dies, the real property passes to their heirs or beneficiaries as real property. The question hinges on the specific timing of the contract execution relative to the testator’s death and the nature of the property in question. Since the contract for the sale of the Kansas farmland was executed on May 1st, 2023, and the testator died on June 15th, 2023, equitable conversion has taken place. The farmland, which was real property at the time of the testator’s death, is now treated as personal property in equity due to the binding contract for its sale. Therefore, it will pass as personal property to the testator’s residuary beneficiaries, who are designated to receive the testator’s personal estate. The specific amount of the purchase price or the closing date, while relevant to the transaction, does not alter the equitable conversion that has already occurred upon the binding contract.

In Kansas, a will that is not self-proving requires a witness to attest to the testator’s signature and competency. The Kansas Probate Code, specifically K.S.A. § 59-606, outlines the requirements for a valid will. A will is considered self-proving if the testator and witnesses sign an affidavit that meets the statutory requirements, which then allows the will to be admitted to probate without further testimony from the witnesses. If a will is not self-proving, the court must take testimony from at least one of the subscribing witnesses, or other evidence, to establish the due execution of the will. This testimony is crucial to ensure the testator had the requisite testamentary capacity and acted without undue influence or fraud. The absence of such testimony, or a failure to secure it, can lead to the will being challenged and potentially invalidated. The scenario describes a situation where a will was executed but not self-proved, and one witness is now deceased. To admit the will, the court would need to rely on the testimony of the surviving witness or other competent evidence to prove the will’s due execution.

In Kansas, the concept of an “interested witness” to a will is governed by K.S.A. § 59-604. This statute addresses the validity of a will when one of the attesting witnesses is also a beneficiary under the will. The statute provides that if a will is attested by a person to whom a beneficial devise, legacy, or interest is given in the will, the devise, legacy, or interest shall be void as to that witness, and the witness shall be a competent witness to prove the execution of the will, in like manner as if the devise, legacy, or interest had not been given. However, if there are other competent witnesses to the will, the devise to the interested witness remains void. The purpose of this statute is to prevent undue influence or fraud by a beneficiary who is in a position to influence the testator during the will’s execution. In this scenario, while Elara is a beneficiary, her status as an interested witness does not automatically invalidate the entire will, provided there are other valid attesting witnesses. The devise to Elara is void, but the will itself remains valid concerning other beneficiaries and provisions not directly benefiting Elara. Therefore, the will is valid, but Elara forfeits her inheritance.

The core issue here is the interpretation of the phrase “my surviving issue” in the context of a will. In Kansas, as in many jurisdictions, the term “issue” generally refers to lineal descendants, meaning children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on. When a testator uses “surviving issue,” it typically refers to those descendants who are alive at the time of a specified event, usually the death of a preceding beneficiary or the testator’s own death. The will specifies a life estate for Eleanor, with the remainder to “my surviving issue.” This means that upon Eleanor’s death, the property will pass to the descendants of the testator who are alive at that precise moment. The testator’s children, Beatrice and Charles, are deceased, but they each left surviving children. These grandchildren of the testator are his issue. Since the will does not specify that the issue must be of a certain generation (e.g., only children), the term encompasses all lineal descendants. Therefore, the property will be divided among the children of Beatrice and the children of Charles who are alive when Eleanor dies. This distribution will be per stirpes, meaning it will be divided by representation. The estate will be divided into as many equal shares as there are surviving children of the testator (Beatrice and Charles, even though deceased) plus any deceased children who left surviving issue. In this case, there are two branches of issue stemming from Beatrice and Charles. Thus, the remainder interest will be divided into two equal parts, with one part going to Beatrice’s children and the other part going to Charles’s children, to be further divided among them.

In Kansas, the determination of a surviving spouse’s elective share rights is governed by Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) § 59-6a201 et seq. This statute outlines the process by which a surviving spouse can elect to take a statutory share of the deceased spouse’s augmented estate, rather than accepting the provisions made for them in the will. The augmented estate is a broader concept than just the probate estate; it includes assets transferred by the decedent during their lifetime to non-probate beneficiaries or to certain trusts, as well as the decedent’s interest in property held as a joint tenant with right of survivorship, and certain other transfers made within a specified period before death. The elective share is typically one-third of the augmented estate. For a spouse to be entitled to an elective share, they must survive the decedent. The question presents a scenario where the spouse dies before the decedent. This means the spouse was not a surviving spouse at the time of the decedent’s death. Therefore, the spouse’s estate has no claim to an elective share. The elective share right is a personal right that vests only in the surviving spouse and does not pass to their heirs or estate if the spouse predeceases the decedent.