In the Matter of the Estate of GREGORY BOYD.
Supreme Court No. S-19242
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
February 4, 2026
Superior Court No. 3GL-21-00005 PR. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT. No. 2133. Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214.
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Glenallen, Rachel Ahrens, Judge.
Appearances: Heather Boyd, pro se, Honolulu, Hawaii. No appearance by Jo Dempsey Boyd, Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Boyd.
Before: Carney, Chief Justice, and Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices.
I. INTRODUCTION
A widow initiated probate proceedings, seeking appointment as personal representative of her husband‘s estate in accordance with the terms of his will. The will granted the husband‘s estranged daughter a remainder interest in his Alaska home. The widow and the daughter initially appeared to agree to a sale of that home and proportionate distribution of the proceeds, but the daughter began disrupting
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
Gregory James Boyd died in September 2021. The terms of Greg‘s will — executed in February 2016 — named his wife, Jo Dempsey Boyd, as personal representative of his estate.1 Greg‘s will left a majority of his estate, including any residuary assets, to Jo. The only other beneficiary set to inherit directly was his daughter from his first marriage, Heather Boyd. Greg‘s will granted Heather an interest in two of his assets: his entire interest in his guiding business, Ram River Outfitters (RRO), to the extent that he “still possess[d] an interest” upon his death,2 and also a remainder interest in his home located in Gakona “[u]pon the death of [his] wife.”
B. Proceedings
On November 24, 2021, the Glenallen superior court granted Jo‘s request to admit Greg‘s will to probate and appoint her personal representative of his estate. Jo then filed the required notice to those with an interest in the estate — just Heather — in February 2022. Jo did not file an inventory of property until October 2022, well outside
After the will was admitted, the estate‘s attorney sent Heather a letter explaining that Greg had died and sharing information about his will and the probate process. The letter explained that, although Greg‘s will permitted Jo to “sell the [Gakona] property, and reinvest the proceeds as she might wish to, without joinder or consent by anyone,” this portion of the will was not consistent with the rules for the life estate Jo had purportedly been granted.4 The letter instead proposed that “Jo would . . . sell the property” and split the proceeds with Heather, with each portion “calculated using actuarial tables.” In response, Heather wrote back that she “fully expect[ed] that [she would] agree to the proposal that [the lawyer] described.” Jo then placed the Gakona property on the market.
Although the parties appeared to agree at first, there was a subsequent breakdown of communication. This breakdown culminated in a stream of aggressive emails from Heather to the estate‘s attorney. Several of these emails pertained to the property‘s sale, and at least one requested that the estate‘s attorney remove the property‘s listing. The court issued a protective order limiting the scope of Heather‘s discovery requests to the Gakona property and Ram River Outfitters, requiring Heather to make the discovery requests in writing with physical copies mailed to the estate‘s
Heather then filed motions to remove the listing, require proof of the estate counsel‘s qualifications to practice law in Alaska, and remove estate counsel‘s entry of appearance. The court did not grant these motions, finding the motion to remove the listing moot because it had already been removed. A few months later, Jo filed her own motion for the court to direct the sale of the Gakona property.
By May of 2023, Jo‘s motion was pending before the court along with 13 motions brought by Heather. The court granted the motion to direct the sale of the property, finding that the sale was appropriate under the circumstances. The court denied all of Heather‘s motions that it did not deem moot.
Heather then complained that she had been “removed as a party” in the case and “not allowed to file motions” after previously being allowed to do so. The court explained that Heather had not been removed and had been allowed to file motions, but that many had been returned due to filing deficiencies.
In early 2024, the Gakona property sold for $269,000. In May 2024, Jo filed a request to close the estate along with a proposed distribution of the assets. The distribution accounted for various debts and assets, including proceeds from the sale of the Gakona property. Under the distribution, Heather was to receive $38,334.78. The court approved the distribution as proposed and closed the estate in September 2024.
Heather now appeals from the court‘s order authorizing distribution and closing the estate. Jo did not participate in the appeal.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review the superior court‘s factual findings for clear error, which exists only when we are left with a definite and firm conviction based on the entire
“The superior court‘s ultimate distribution of assets is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will be reversed only if the distribution is clearly unjust.”7
IV. DISCUSSION
Heather raises several arguments on appeal: that the superior court improperly determined that she was a “non-party,” that the superior court improperly allowed Jo to sell the property without requiring Jo and Heather to settle the issue, and that Jo failed to comply with various sections of the probate code. While Heather does make arguments with respect to other aspects of the probate proceedings, we decline to consider those arguments due to the cursory manner in which they were made.8
A. The Court Did Not Err By Recognizing Heather As An Interested Person, Rather Than A Party, In This Probate Matter.
The superior court properly determined that Heather was an interested person rather than a party in the probate proceedings. A “party” in a probate proceeding is not explicitly defined.9 Heather is correct that the superior court did not formally recognize her as a party — she is not listed as a party on the docket and her docketed
An interested person in a probate proceeding “includes heirs, devisees, [and] children . . . having property rights in or claims against a trust estate.”10 Beneficiaries are interested persons in probate proceedings.11 Heather fits squarely within the statutory definition of an interested person; she is a beneficiary given her remainder interest in the Gakona property. The court therefore correctly noted that, though she was “never . . . a party,” she was certainly “an interested person” in the matter. The superior court‘s determination that Heather was a beneficiary was not clearly erroneous, and we agree with its decision, based on that determination, that she fit the statutory definition of an interested person.
Even though the superior court correctly deemed Heather an interested person, Heather implies that her “non-party” status caused prejudice by limiting her participation in the probate proceedings. This is not the case. Heather experienced no prejudice; she meaningfully participated as an interested person. The superior court considered her motions. For example, the superior court ruled on Heather‘s motions pertaining to Greg‘s defunct business, requests for forms or documentation, an accounting of Jo‘s reasonable and necessary expenses as personal representative, reconsideration of the order requiring Heather to direct all communication through Jo‘s attorney, and claims that Jo breached her fiduciary duty. The superior court explained
The superior court never limited Heather‘s participation due to her “non-party” status. Instead, many of Heather‘s submissions were rejected due to insufficient information or because they were not filings but simply email messages sent to the court‘s general inbox. When the court received these emails, the court clerk issued deficiency notices, some of which noted that Heather was “not a party in this case“; these notices also reflected the materials were email messages and not proper filings. Nonetheless, the court considered the emails on the merits where appropriate. While the deficiency memos apparently were confusing to Heather, they were precipitated by her repeated noncompliant filings. At any rate, Heather does not argue denial of any of these attempted filings was prejudicial, and we do not find prejudice in the court‘s attempt to establish order in the case.
B. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Ordering Jo To Sell The Gakona Property Instead Of Settling With Heather.
Heather argues that her status as a “non-party” led to the sale of the home, and that the superior court erred by allowing a sale instead of requiring a settlement between the estate and Heather. Heather misconstrues the court order and the requirement for personal representatives to “settle” the decedent‘s estate.
First, the order directing the sale of the property was clearly grounded in concerns about economic harm that would result if the property were instead partitioned; the order makes no reference, implicit or explicit, to Heather‘s non-party status. Because partition would have harmed Heather‘s economic interests, the court ordered the property sold so that the proceeds could be divided more fairly.
Second, to the extent that Heather argues that probate laws require settlement instead of selling the property, she misunderstands the meaning of settlement in the context of probate proceedings. Among many other obligations, personal representatives are “under a duty to settle and distribute the estate” in accordance with
Heather appears to argue that because
Jo‘s sale of the property complied with the duty to settle the estate as the term is understood in the probate context. She received approval from the court to sell the Gakona property and divided the proceeds in accordance with the parties’ relative interests. Heather had a full and fair opportunity to dispute the distribution, and the
C. Selling The Gakona Property Did Not Violate Any Other Statutes.
Heather argues that the court‘s order permitting the sale of the Gakona property violated
Heather first argues that
Heather also points out that
While Jo did not file notice of her address within the 30-day window after appointment, she did do so about a month later. Jo was also late in sending the first copy of the estate‘s inventory of property, but she sent supplemental inventories as required in February 2023 and May 2024. Although Jo‘s initial inventory filing was not timely, the court found that her delay was “a result of the inaccessibility of the Gakona Property during winter.”
Although a personal representative is a fiduciary who has a duty to settle and distribute the estate “as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best
Heather next argues that Jo is liable for loss and damage to the estate. She does not explain what she contends is loss or damage to the estate.
Finally, Heather contends that
Here, Jo had no substantial conflict of interest affecting the sale of the property. Heather argued that Jo had a conflict of interest because Jo also was a beneficiary of the estate. But the court made clear that “[t]here [was] no basis for this claim.” Jo was properly named as both a beneficiary and the personal representative, and “the type of estate sale that Jo held [was] explicitly authorized by statute.” The property was publicly listed, sold through a real estate company, and there was no evidence that Jo knew the buyers beforehand. Because the sale did not implicate a substantial conflict of interest between the personal representative and the buyers, there were no grounds to void the sale. This means there was no need for notice to Heather under this statute. The superior court did not err in rejecting Heather‘s argument that Jo violated
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the superior court‘s order distributing the estate property and closing the estate.