TRUSTS & ESTATES LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Justin T. Reed
In Matter of Estate of Evensen, 531 P.3d 969 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that if the original of a will document cannot be found, there is a rebuttable presumption that the testator revoked it. (Id. at 978). In 1994, Evensen drafted a typewritten will which bore her handwritten signature but lacked witness signatures. (Id. at 972). Evensen’s 1994 will also contained several handwritten additions and alterations. (Id.). In 2007, Evensen sent a scanned copy of her will to the Alaska SPCA (to which she intended to bequeath at least some of her assets). (Id. at 971). Evensen’s 2007 will contained the same typewritten contents as her 1994 will, but the handwritten alterations differed. (Id. at 973). Notably, on her 2007 will, Evensen crossed out the typewritten names of all beneficiaries except the Alaska SCPA. (Id.). The superior court concluded that the 1994 and 2007 wills, whether considered individually or separately, were insufficient to constitute a valid holographic will. (Id. at 974). On appeal, the supreme court reversed in part, holding that the 1994 will met the statutory requirements of a valid holographic will. (Id. at 979). The supreme court reasoned that, since Evensen’s handwritten additions identified the property and devisee, those additions constituted material portions of her will. (Id. at 976). Since those material portions were in Evensen’s handwriting, the 1994 will thereby qualified as a valid holographic will under Alaska Statute 12.12.502(b). (Id.). Further cementing the validity of Evensen’s 1994 will, the supreme court also held that Evensen’s brother did not meet his burden to establish Evensen’s lack of testamentary intent in her 1994 will. (Id.). The supreme court looked to several pieces of extrinsic evidence – such as Evensen’s work history, collection of articles about estate planning, patterns of behavior, and more – to support her testamentary intent. (Id. at 977). Lastly, the supreme court held that Evensen’s 2007 will was presumptively revoked. (Id. at 979). If the original of a will document cannot be found, there is a rebuttable presumption that the testator revoked it. (Id. at 978). The Alaska SCPA offered several arguments to rebut that presumption, but the supreme court held that they did not provide clear and convincing evidence to do so. (Id.). For these reasons, the supreme court held that Evensen’s 1994 will met the statutory requirements of a valid holographic will, but her 2007 will was presumptively revoked. (Id. at 971). Reversing in part the decision of the superior court, the supreme court held that if the original of a will document cannot be found, there is a rebuttable presumption that the testator revoked it.
