Kansas Supreme Court denied the objection and found it was not a claim against the estate but was an action by the heirs-at-law seeking the administration of assets not yet administered. Wright, 170 Kan. at 406-07. The facts in Wright are the same as the facts of this case as Beverly is seeking authority to administer this estate and to find out if there are any assets that need to be administered for the benefit of the estate and its heirs. Clearly, this is an action by Beverly asking for authority to marshal the assets of the estate, if any. An action to marshal assets does not invoke the nonclaim statute. See Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, 288 Kan. 510, 532, 205 P.3d 698 (2009) (in such cases the nonclaim statute does not apply); Nickel v. Vogel, 76 Kan. 625, 92 P. 1105 (1907) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, we note the Supreme Courts
holding that at least a part of the debtors motivation was to keep assets away from the creditors holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts holding that a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction does not diminish post confirmation if the debtor pursuant to a liquidating plan seeks to commence litigation to collect the debtors assets for the benefit of its creditors holding that the jurisdiction of the probate courts of this state to appoint administrators does not depend upon the existence of either assets or creditors recognizing code rather than state law as the  genesis of an oversecured creditors entitlement to interest out of estate assets regardless of the source of the hen 