Short answer. Possibly, within two years of the settlement. Rule 74, Section 4 says the estate's real property “shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.” Selling the land does not clear that liability.
What the law says
Such bond and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made.
Rule 74, Section 4 — Liability of distributees and estate. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If it shall appear at any time within two years after the settlement and distribution of an estate in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation.
Rule 74, Section 4 — Liability of distributees and estate. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both
Rule 74, Section 4 — Liability of distributees and estate. Read the full provision →
The two-year window after settlement
Rule 74, Section 4 exists because an extrajudicial or summary settlement can leave someone out — an heir who was not given their share, or a creditor whose debt against the estate was never paid. The rule gives that person a remedy within a fixed period: "if it shall appear at any time within two years after the settlement and distribution of an estate ... that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the settlement of the estate in the courts." The same two-year window applies to outstanding debts of the estate that were never paid.
How the court can enforce this
If an omitted heir or unpaid creditor comes forward in time, the rule authorizes the court to "settle the amount of such debts or lawful participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee shall contribute in the payment thereof." If a distributee does not pay what is ordered, the court "may issue execution ... against the bond provided in the preceding section or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both." So the remedy is not limited to a personal claim against each heir — it can be enforced directly against the estate's real property.
Why selling the land does not end the liability
This is the part that answers the question. The rule specifically addresses what happens if the property changes hands: the bond and the real estate "shall remain charged with a liability to creditors, heirs, or other persons for the full period of two years after such distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have been made." Selling inherited land after settlement does not, by itself, cut off this liability while the two years are still running. The charge attaches to the property itself for that period, regardless of who bought it in the meantime.
The liability is tied to the two-year period
The protection given to a creditor or omitted heir under this rule is expressly framed around the "full period of two years after such distribution." That is the timeframe the rule sets for the property to remain charged and for a claim of this kind to be brought. Once outside that stated period, this particular remedy — reaching the estate's real property, even after it has been transferred, through this rule — no longer applies in the same way, since the rule's language ties the charge specifically to those two years.