531 P.3d 969
Alaska2023Background
- Decedent Janice Evensen signed two will documents: a largely typewritten 1994 document with multiple dated handwritten amendments, and a 2007 typed copy with different handwritten changes; parties stipulated Janice wrote the handwriting on both.
- The 1994 document was found in Janice’s home and included a handwritten back-page listing animal charities and instructions about using mutual funds/proceeds; it was signed and dated November 25, 1994.
- The 2007 document was a scanned copy in the Alaska SPCA’s files, signed and dated August 6, 2007; the original was never found.
- Janice repeatedly expressed a desire to leave her estate to animal charities and to disinherit family; neighbors testified about her statements and about her efforts to get charities’ help finalizing a will.
- Superior Court held neither document constituted a holographic will (or together a will and codicil); it also found the 2007 will presumptively revoked because the original was missing.
- On appeal the Alaska SPCA argued the documents (separately or together) formed a valid holographic will or a will plus codicil; the Supreme Court reviewed statutory standards, testamentary intent, and the lost-original presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Alaska SPCA (Appellant) Argument | Osterberg (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the 1994 document is a valid holographic will | Handwritten material portions (beneficiaries and property directions) plus signature satisfy AS 13.12.502(b) | Typewritten portions predominate; handwritten notes were drafty/conditional and not the material portions | The 1994 Will is a valid holographic will: material portions identifying devisees/property are in decedent’s handwriting and testamentary intent was not disproven |
| 2. Whether the 2007 document is admissible where original is missing | Copy plus extrinsic evidence (statements, correspondence) rebuts presumption of revocation | Missing original creates rebuttable presumption of revocation; SPCA didn’t meet clear-and-convincing proof of loss | Affirmed: 2007 Will was presumptively revoked; SPCA failed to rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence |
| 3. Whether the 1994 and 2007 documents may be combined (or treated as will + codicil) | The two documents can be read together to reflect decedent’s final intent or as a will + codicil | A presumptively revoked later document cannot validate or modify the earlier will; a codicil must itself meet will formalities | Rejected: a presumptively revoked later instrument cannot be used to modify the valid 1994 holographic will; codicil rule not satisfied |
| 4. Whether extrinsic evidence shows lack of testamentary intent for the 1994 Will | SPCA: extrinsic evidence (letters, statements) supports that Janice intended gifts to SPCA and that writings were final | Osterberg: conditional language, draft correspondence, and Janice’s drafting knowledge show she chose not to finalize a will | Court: testimonial and documentary evidence did not overcome the 1994 Will’s apparent testamentary intent; Osterberg did not carry burden to prove lack of testamentary intent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Est. of Baker, 386 P.3d 1228 (Alaska 2016) (interpreting Alaska holographic will statute and material-portion requirement)
- Dan v. Dan, 288 P.3d 480 (Alaska 2012) (presumption of revocation when original will missing)
- Vukmir v. Vukmir, 74 P.3d 918 (Alaska 2003) (standard of review for will language interpretation)
- In re Est. of Kraft, 374 P.2d 413 (Alaska 1962) (testamentary intent and appellate review standard)
- Smith v. Est. of Peters, 741 P.2d 1172 (Alaska 1987) (wills construed to avoid intestacy)
- Sanders v. McClanahan, 442 S.W.2d 664 (Tenn. App. 1969) (difficulty of proving lost holographic will)