In Re Estate of Seward, 424 P.3d 333

Decedent James V. Seward died in 2013 leaving a 2008 will that stated he had no children; the will was admitted to informal probate.
Vincent Mock claimed Seward was his father and sought a paternity determination in the probate proceeding to qualify as a child for the statutory exempt property allowance (AS 13.12.403).
The personal representative opposed, arguing paternity determinations cannot be made in probate and that Vincent’s claims were time‑barred.
The superior court denied Vincent’s requests and later found Vincent and his mother were not interested persons, barring further participation.
This Court previously held paternity determinations may be made in probate and requested supplemental briefing on whether a statute of limitations barred Vincent’s claim; the Court now addresses that limitations question and remands for a paternity determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mock)	Defendant's Argument (Personal Rep.)	Held
1. Can paternity be determined in a probate proceeding?	Probate may determine parentage for intestate/successorship purposes and exempt allowance.	Paternity requires a separate action outside probate.	Yes; AS 13.12.114 supplies procedure for establishing parentage in probate.
2. Is a paternity determination in probate a separate cause of action subject to a statute of limitations?	The paternity determination is procedural for the exempt allowance, not a standalone cause of action.	It is a distinct paternity action and thus time‑barred.	It is procedural, not a separate cause; no independent statute‑of‑limitations bar.
3. Is the statutory exempt property allowance a "claim" subject to the probate non‑claim (4‑month) bar?	The exempt allowance is a probate family allowance, not a claim under AS 13.16.460(b).	The allowance is a right that could be time‑barred like other claims.	The exempt allowance is not a "claim" under the non‑claim statute; the 4‑month bar does not apply.
4. If timely, must paternity be proven and by what standard on remand?	Vincent can prove parentage under AS 13.12.114/AS 25.20.050; DNA evidence helpful but not always required.	A DNA match (95% probability) is necessary and Vincent cannot meet it.	Remand for paternity determination; 95% genetic probability creates a rebuttable presumption but testing is not mandatory and parentage may be proved by other sufficient evidence.

GEICO v. Gonzalez, 403 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017) (standard for reviewing questions of law).
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc., 322 P.3d 114 (Alaska 2014) (adopting rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, policy).
State, Office of Pub. Advocacy v. Estate of Jean R., 371 P.3d 614 (Alaska 2016) (statutory interpretation principles).
Moffit v. Moffitt, 341 P.3d 1102 (Alaska 2014) (review of statute of limitations questions de novo).
Grober v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enf’t Div. ex rel. C.J.W., 956 P.2d 1230 (Alaska 1998) (treating paternity and accrual of child‑support claims).
Heustess v. Kelley‑Heustess, 259 P.3d 462 (Alaska 2011) (application of civil statute of limitations to child support claims).
Christianson v. Conrad‑Houston Ins., 318 P.3d 390 (Alaska 2014) (when statute of limitations begins to run).
In re Hutchinson’s Estate, 577 P.2d 1074 (Alaska 1978) (family allowances are not "claims" for probate non‑claim statute).