TRUSTS & ESTATES LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Rasa Kerelis
In In the Matter of the Estate of Paul Arthur Bentley, No. S-17944, 2024 WL 4246121 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that a testator may choose Alaska law to govern the effect and interpretation of the will with regard to property located in Alaska, including Alaska’s after-married spouse statute. (Id. at 251). Paul Bentley, testator, drafted and signed a will following health complications which left property to Eleanor Haynes, his brother, and the National Kidney Foundation (NKF). (Id. at 245). Bentley also included a provision to administer his estate in accordance with Alaska law. (Id.). After signing the will and before his death, Bentley and Haynes married. (Id.). While Haynes filed a notice claiming entitlement to Bentley’s estate according to Alaska law, NFK opposed the petition. (Id. at 245–46). NFK argued that because Bentley was domiciled in Washington when he died the will should be interpreted according to Washington law, and therefore Haynes did not meet statutory criteria to inherit the estate. (Id. at 246–47). The superior court agreed, and Haynes appealed. (Id. at 247). The supreme court rejected both parties’ arguments regarding statutory interpretation of the relevant Alaska law. (Id. at 248). Rather than partitioning “intrinsic” and “formal” validity of spousal rights, the supreme court looked to the underlying policy of an Alaskan probate statute to allow testators to choose to have Alaska law govern the broad interpretation and effects of their wills. (Id. at 249). As such, the supreme court rejected the superior court’s order to apply Washington law and remanded the case to determine Haynes’s inheritance accordingly. (Id. at 251).
