Short answer. Yes. Under Rule 88, Section 6, when heirs, devisees or legatees have taken possession of portions of the estate before its debts and expenses were settled, the settlement court may, after hearing, fix how much each must contribute and may even issue execution to enforce those contributive shares.
What the law says
the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each person shall contribute, and may issue execution as circumstances require
Rule 88, Section 6 — Court to fix contributive shares where devisees, legatees, or heirs have been in possession. Read the full provision →
What the rule authorises
Rule 88, Section 6 speaks to exactly this situation. Where devisees, legatees or heirs have entered into possession of portions of the estate before the debts and expenses have been settled and paid, and have become liable to contribute to their payment, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of their several liabilities, and order how much and in what manner each person shall contribute, and may issue execution as circumstances require. The settlement court does not have to sue you separately; it can fix and enforce the contributions inside the estate case itself.
Taking property early does not outrun the debts
The premise of the rule is worth absorbing: possession by the heirs does not put property beyond the reach of the estate's creditors. Debts and expenses are settled out of the estate before the heirs keep what remains, and heirs who help themselves to assets ahead of that settlement simply carry the liability with them. What changes when you take possession early is not whether the debts get paid but who the court looks to for the money — instead of paying creditors from a fund still under administration, it orders the persons now holding the property to contribute.
A hearing first, and several liabilities, not one lump
Two features of the mechanism protect the heirs. First, the order comes only after hearing — each heir has the chance to be heard on what was actually received and what it was worth before any liability is fixed. Second, the court settles the amount of their several liabilities and orders how much and in what manner each person shall contribute: the burden is individualised, not imposed jointly on whoever is easiest to reach. An heir who took a small share should not silently absorb the same contribution as one who took the family home.
What to do if you are facing a contribution order
The practical work is documentary. Establish what each heir actually received, when, and at what value, because those facts drive how the court apportions the contributions at the hearing. Establish, too, what the outstanding debts and expenses really are — a contribution order is only as sound as the liabilities behind it. And note the rule's last clause: the court may issue execution as circumstances require, meaning an order fixing your share is enforceable like a judgment. Ignoring it invites levy, not delay, so the hearing is the place to contest amounts, not after the order issues.