In Re the Estate of Kuhn

Supreme Court of Kansas

In Re the Estate of Kuhn

626 P.2d 794, 229 Kan. 536, 1981 Kan. LEXIS 225

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 25, 1981

Docket51,909

StatusPublished

This text of 626 P.2d 794 (In Re the Estate of Kuhn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Estate of Kuhn, 626 P.2d 794, 229 Kan. 536, 1981 Kan. LEXIS 225 (kan 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is a controversy which developed during the administration of the estate of an intestate decedent. The dispute arose when the appellee, Howard L. Kuhn, claimed to be the son of the decedent, Herman V. Kuhn, and, as such, entitled to a share of the estate. The claim of parentage was disputed by the appellants, Joy LaVerne Hicks, daughter of Herman V. Kuhn, and her two sons. After a full evidentiary hearing, the district court entered judgment in favor of Howard L. Kuhn, finding him to be Herman V. Kuhn’s son and heir. The trial court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its judgment. We have carefully studied the entire record in the present case and have concluded that there is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the district court that Howard L. Kuhn was the son and heir of Herman V. Kuhn as defined by K.S.A. 59-501.

We find no merit to the contention of the appellants that the district court erred in receiving into evidence Howard L. Kuhn’s birth certificate issued by the State of Wyoming. The issuance of the Wyoming birth certificate, when coupled with the evidence that it had been obtained and paid for by Herman V. Kuhn during his lifetime, was admissible to show that decedent considered *537 and recognized Howard L. Kuhn as his son. We further reject the contention of the appellants that the trial court erroneously interpreted and applied K.S.A. 59-501. Under K.S.A. 59-501, the relationship of father and child may be established where the father has notoriously or in writing recognized his paternity of the child. In other words, evidence of recognition by the father is evidence of paternity and may be sufficient to establish paternity. Brooks v. Fellows, 106 Kan. 102, 104, 186 Pac. 985 (1920); Diver v. Fourth National Bank, 132 Kan. 36, 294 Pac. 924 (1931).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

This is a controversy which developed during the administration of the estate of an intestate decedent. The dispute arose when the appellee, Howard L. Kuhn, claimed to be the son of the decedent, Herman V. Kuhn, and, as such, entitled to a share of the estate. The claim of parentage was disputed by the appellants, Joy LaVerne Hicks, daughter of Herman V. Kuhn, and her two sons. After a full evidentiary hearing, the district court entered judgment in favor of Howard L. Kuhn, finding him to be Herman V. Kuhn’s son and heir. The trial court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its judgment. We have carefully studied the entire record in the present case and have concluded that there is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the district court that Howard L. Kuhn was the son and heir of Herman V. Kuhn as defined by K.S.A. 59-501.

We find no merit to the contention of the appellants that the district court erred in receiving into evidence Howard L. Kuhn’s birth certificate issued by the State of Wyoming. The issuance of the Wyoming birth certificate, when coupled with the evidence that it had been obtained and paid for by Herman V. Kuhn during his lifetime, was admissible to show that decedent considered *537 and recognized Howard L. Kuhn as his son. We further reject the contention of the appellants that the trial court erroneously interpreted and applied K.S.A. 59-501. Under K.S.A. 59-501, the relationship of father and child may be established where the father has notoriously or in writing recognized his paternity of the child. In other words, evidence of recognition by the father is evidence of paternity and may be sufficient to establish paternity. Brooks v. Fellows, 106 Kan. 102, 104, 186 Pac. 985 (1920); Diver v. Fourth National Bank, 132 Kan. 36, 294 Pac. 924 (1931).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

626 P.2d 794, 229 Kan. 536, 1981 Kan. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-kuhn-kan-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack