Common law rules inapplicable; rule in Shelley's case and estates tail

58-502. Common law rules inapplicable; rule in Shelley's case and estates tail. The rules of the common law, known as the rule in Shelley's case, and those pertaining to estates tail, however created, shall not be applied in this state to any instrument which becomes effective after the effective date of this act. Every instrument not within the purview of K.S.A. 58-503 taking effect after the effective date of this act and disposing of property which but for this section would create an estate tail shall create a life estate in the first taker and a remainder in fee in the next taker. History: L. 1939, ch. 181, § 2; July 1. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "Survey of Kansas Law: Taxation," Sandra Craig McKenzie and Virginia Ratzlaff, 33 K.L.R. 71, 87 (1984). CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Effect of section discussed but not applied in construing deed. Foster v. Stowers, 150 Kan. 599, 602, 95 P.2d 343. 2. Cited but not applied; deed held not to create fee tail estate. Jonas v. Jones, 153 Kan. 108, 112, 109 P.2d 211. 3. Mentioned but not applied; will held not to create estate tail. Delp v. George, 158 Kan. 774, 775, 150 P.2d 334; Morehead v. Goellert, 160 Kan. 598, 599, 164 P.2d 110. 4. Mentioned in construing will executed before section effective. Wood River Oil & Refining Co. v. Madden, 169 Kan. 633, 638, 220 P.2d 154. 5. Instrument did not clearly show an estate tail was intended. Smith v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 173 Kan. 90, 95, 244 P.2d 1027. 6. Deed construed; conveyed life estate with vested remainders; "bodily heirs" construed. Waite v. Schmidt, 173 Kan. 353, 356, 245 P.2d 975. 7. "Heirs of body" limitation in will construed. Reetz v. Sims, 177 Kan. 143, 145, 147, 276 P.2d 368. 8. Language of will did not create an estate tail. Steele v. Pedroja, 178 Kan. 441, 445, 447, 289 P.2d 738. 9. Will found to violate the common-law rule against perpetuities and the allied rules against limitation upon alienation and unlawful accumulation; invalid provision stricken and will upheld. In re Estate of Foster, 190 Kan. 498, 376 P.2d 784. 10. Cited in holding Kansas probate code does not abrogate common law in state; presumption of revocation recognized. In re Estate of Mettee, 10 Kan. App. 2d 184, 186, 694 P.2d 1325 (1985). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026