Main Menu

Matter of Estate of Rousey

TRUSTS & ESTATES LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Alison Tobin

In Matter of Estate of Rousey, 568 P.3d 717 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that inter vivos transfers must be rescinded when the estate has presented clear and convincing evidence that the transfers were the product of undue influence over the deceased’s financial and legal decisions. (Id. at 731–32). The Rousey’s were a financially successful family and had built a substantial portfolio of properties in and outside of Alaska. (Id. at 721). As Erna Rousey aged, her memory began to decline, leading to her dementia diagnosis in 2015. (Id.). When her husband James entered into rehabilitative care in 2017, Erna lived alone and began to depend heavily on her son Jimmy. (Id.). Jimmy was involved in all aspects of Erna’s life, from household and yard upkeep to advising her on legal and financial matters, with his involvement only increasing after his father’s death in 2018. (Id.). By the end of 2019, Erna had transferred all five of her properties to Jimmy, added him to her bank accounts, and transferred him nearly $225,000, leaving her with just $950. (Id.). After Erna’s death in December 2019, the estate filed a probate petition requesting rescission of the inter vivos transfers to Jimmy. (Id.). Finding that Erna was susceptible to undue influence because of her dementia and reliance on Jimmy, the superior court held rescission of the transfers was necessary and awarded the estate attorneys’ fees, granting an enhanced award due to Jimmy’s bad faith not only during the litigation, but in his fraud against his mother. (Id. at 734). Although agreeing the estate is entitled to attorneys’ fees, the Supreme Court remanded for a reconsideration of the amount, finding that the court may not hold a litigant’s pretrial actions against them when conducting the collective bad faith analysis. (Id.). The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that rescission of inter vivos transfers is proper where the recipient abused his confidential relationship with the grantor and thus exerted undue influence over the grantor’s actions. (Id. at 731–32, 735).

Matter of Estate of Rousey

TRUSTS & ESTATES LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Alison Tobin

In Matter of Estate of Rousey, 568 P.3d 717 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that inter vivos transfers must be rescinded when the estate has presented clear and convincing evidence that the transfers were the product of undue influence over the deceased’s financial and legal decisions. (Id. at 731–32). The Rousey’s were a financially successful family and had built a substantial portfolio of properties in and outside of Alaska. (Id. at 721). As Erna Rousey aged, her memory began to decline, leading to her dementia diagnosis in 2015. (Id.). When her husband James entered into rehabilitative care in 2017, Erna lived alone and began to depend heavily on her son Jimmy. (Id.). Jimmy was involved in all aspects of Erna’s life, from household and yard upkeep to advising her on legal and financial matters, with his involvement only increasing after his father’s death in 2018. (Id.). By the end of 2019, Erna had transferred all five of her properties to Jimmy, added him to her bank accounts, and transferred him nearly $225,000, leaving her with just $950. (Id.). After Erna’s death in December 2019, the estate filed a probate petition requesting rescission of the inter vivos transfers to Jimmy. (Id.). Finding that Erna was susceptible to undue influence because of her dementia and reliance on Jimmy, the superior court held rescission of the transfers was necessary and awarded the estate attorneys’ fees, granting an enhanced award due to Jimmy’s bad faith not only during the litigation, but in his fraud against his mother. (Id. at 734). Although agreeing the estate is entitled to attorneys’ fees, the Supreme Court remanded for a reconsideration of the amount, finding that the court may not hold a litigant’s pretrial actions against them when conducting the collective bad faith analysis. (Id.). The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that rescission of inter vivos transfers is proper where the recipient abused his confidential relationship with the grantor and thus exerted undue influence over the grantor’s actions. (Id. at 731–32, 735).