The core issue here is the validity of a will that was drafted and signed in a jurisdiction with different legal requirements for execution than Alaska, and then later presented for probate in Alaska. Alaska statutes, specifically AS 13.12.506, address the self-proved will and the validation of wills executed outside of Alaska. This statute provides that a will is valid if it was executed in accordance with the law of the place where it was executed, or the law of the place where the testator was domiciled at the time of execution or at the time of death. In this scenario, the testator, Ms. Anya Petrova, executed her will in a state that permits holographic wills, meaning a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, without the requirement of attesting witnesses. Alaska, however, does not recognize holographic wills unless they are also executed in compliance with Alaska’s formal requirements for attested wills (i.e., signed by the testator and attested by two witnesses, neither of whom need to be the same person who signed the will, but they must sign in the testator’s presence). Since Ms. Petrova’s will was executed in a state that permits holographic wills, and it meets those requirements, it is valid under the law of the place of execution. Alaska law, through AS 13.12.506, gives effect to such wills. Therefore, the will is valid in Alaska because it was validly executed in another state, even though it would not be valid if executed in Alaska without witnesses. The fact that the will is holographic in nature does not invalidate it in Alaska if it was validly executed in a jurisdiction that permits such wills. The question tests the understanding of extraterritorial validity of wills under Alaska law.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, under duress, alters a previously valid will. Alaska law, consistent with general principles of wills and estates, recognizes that testamentary intent must be freely given. Duress, as a form of undue influence, invalidates a will or a portion of a will that was procured through coercion. The key legal principle here is the absence of genuine testamentary capacity and intent when the testator is acting under compulsion. When a will is found to be the product of duress, the affected provisions, or the entire will if the duress permeates the document, are rendered void. The will, as originally executed before the duress, or if the duress affects only specific bequests, the remaining valid portions, would then be given effect. In Alaska, AS 13.12.802 addresses the effect of fraud and duress on a will, stating that a will is voidable if procured by duress. Therefore, the will executed under duress is invalid to the extent of the duress. The prior valid will, or the portions of the current will not affected by the duress, would govern the disposition of the testator’s estate.

In Alaska, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. When a trustee is considering a modification to an irrevocable trust that was created before the effective date of the Alaska Uniform Trust Code, specific provisions apply. AS 13.36.116 allows for modification of a trust by consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor if the settlor has a continuing beneficial interest. If the settlor is deceased, modification by consent requires the agreement of all beneficiaries whose consent is required to achieve the purposes of the trust, and the modification must not be inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust. AS 13.36.117 provides for modification by a single trustee if the modification is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust and is granted by the court. AS 13.36.118 allows for modification if all beneficiaries consent and the modification is not inconsistent with a material purpose. However, AS 13.36.119 permits modification by a trustee without beneficiary consent if the trust is irrevocable, the trustee is unable to accomplish the purposes of the trust, and the modification is consistent with the settlor’s intent. Specifically, AS 13.36.119(a)(2) allows a trustee to modify an irrevocable trust if the trustee determines that the trust’s purposes have become unlawful, contrary to public policy, or impossible to achieve. The question asks about a trustee’s ability to modify an irrevocable trust where the sole beneficiary, who is also the settlor’s child, is now deceased, and the trust’s purpose was to provide for the beneficiary’s lifetime support. The trust does not specify an alternative beneficiary or remainder interest. In this scenario, the trust’s purpose, as originally intended for the deceased beneficiary, is now impossible to achieve. AS 13.36.119(a)(2) directly addresses this situation, allowing a trustee to modify an irrevocable trust if the trustee determines that the trust’s purposes have become impossible to achieve. The trustee can then petition the court for approval of a modification to redirect the trust assets in a manner consistent with the settlor’s likely intent, which, in the absence of a specified remainder, might involve distributing the assets to the settlor’s estate or heirs.

Alaska law, specifically AS 13.12.502, addresses the effect of divorce on a will. Generally, a divorce revokes any disposition of property to the former spouse in a will executed before the divorce. It also revokes any appointment of the former spouse as executor or to any other fiduciary office. However, this revocation does not apply if the will expressly provides otherwise, or if the will was executed after the divorce. In this scenario, the will was executed in 2018, prior to the divorce in 2022. The will specifically names Bartholomew as executor and bequeaths a significant portion of the estate to him. Since the divorce occurred after the will’s execution and there is no provision in the will indicating it should remain in effect despite a divorce, the divorce revokes the provisions in favor of Bartholomew. Therefore, Bartholomew cannot serve as executor, nor will he receive the bequest. The will would be construed as if Bartholomew had predeceased the testator, and the remaining provisions would be given effect, with the court appointing a new executor if the will does not provide an alternate.

Under Alaska law, specifically Alaska Statutes Title 13 (Uniform Probate Code), the validity of a will hinges on several key elements. For a will to be considered valid, it must be in writing, signed by the testator (or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction), and signed by at least two individuals each of whom witnessed the signing of the will or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or of the will. This is the standard for an attested will. Holographic wills, which are written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, do not require witnesses in Alaska. However, the scenario describes a will that was signed by the testator and witnessed by two individuals, indicating it is intended to be an attested will. The question then asks about the effect of the testator’s subsequent mental incapacitation on the will’s validity. A will is generally presumed to be valid if it meets the statutory requirements at the time of its execution. Subsequent mental incapacitation does not retroactively invalidate a will that was validly executed when the testator had the requisite testamentary capacity. Testamentary capacity requires the testator to understand the nature and extent of their property, the natural objects of their bounty, and the disposition they are making of their property. If the testator possessed this capacity at the time of signing, and the will was properly witnessed, the will remains valid even if they later become incapacitated. Therefore, the will remains valid as it was properly executed during a period of presumed capacity.

In Alaska, a will can be revoked by a subsequent will or codicil that expressly revokes the prior will or by a subsequent will or codicil that is wholly inconsistent with the prior will. Alternatively, a will can be revoked by a physical act performed with the intent to revoke, such as burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will. The Alaska Statutes, specifically AS 13.12.507, outline these methods. For a physical act of revocation to be effective, the testator must perform the act on the will itself, and this act must be done with the intent to revoke. Simply intending to revoke without performing a physical act on the document, or performing a physical act on a copy of the will without the original, is generally insufficient for revocation by physical act. The scenario describes a testator who, after executing a valid will, expresses a desire to revoke it and writes “This will is void” on the back of the original document. This writing on the back of the original will, if done with the intent to revoke, constitutes a cancellation or obliteration of the will under Alaska law, thus effectively revoking it. This is distinct from merely stating an intention to revoke or destroying a copy. The key elements are the physical act performed on the original document and the testamentary intent accompanying that act.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Elara, created a will in Alaska. Subsequently, she moved to Oregon and executed a codicil. The critical legal question is whether this codicil, which was not executed with the formalities required by Alaska law for a will (specifically, the requirement of two witnesses), can still be considered valid in Alaska for purposes of interpreting the original will. Alaska law, like many states, generally recognizes wills validly executed in another jurisdiction according to the laws of that jurisdiction or Alaska. However, a codicil that modifies an existing will must generally comply with the execution formalities of the state whose law governs the will’s probate, or the law of the state where it was executed. Alaska Statute 13.11.106 provides that a will executed in compliance with Alaska law or the law of the place where it is executed, or of the law of the place where the testator was domiciled at the time of execution, is valid. However, this statute primarily addresses the validity of the initial will. For a codicil, which is an amendment or addition to an existing will, the general rule is that it must be executed with the same formalities as required for the original will, unless a specific statute provides otherwise. Alaska does not have a specific statute that would validate a codicil executed in Oregon with fewer formalities than Alaska requires, if that codicil is intended to affect an Alaska-domiciled testator’s estate probated in Alaska. Therefore, if the codicil was not executed with the two-witness requirement of Alaska law, it would not be valid as a codicil to Elara’s Alaska will, even if Oregon law might have permitted its execution with only one witness or no witnesses under certain circumstances (e.g., a holographic codicil, which Alaska does not recognize unless it meets the strict requirements of a holographic will, which this scenario does not suggest). The effect is that the codicil, not meeting Alaska’s execution requirements for a codicil, cannot alter the terms of the original Alaska will. The original will remains in full force and effect as if the codicil had never been executed.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Ms. Anya Petrova, executed a will in Alaska. Subsequently, she moved to California and, without revoking her Alaska will, created a document in California that purports to alter the distribution of her estate. This document, while not executed with the formalities of an attested will in Alaska (requiring two witnesses), is handwritten by Ms. Petrova and signed by her. Alaska law, specifically AS 13.12.505, recognizes holographic wills, which are wills written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Such wills do not require witnesses. Therefore, the California document, being entirely in Ms. Petrova’s handwriting and signed by her, qualifies as a holographic will under Alaska’s recognition of such wills, even if California law itself might have different requirements for holographic wills or might not recognize them at all. The key is that Alaska law governs the validity of the will of an Alaska domiciliary at the time of death, and Alaska law specifically permits holographic wills. The earlier attested Alaska will is not automatically revoked by the creation of a valid holographic will unless the holographic will contains clear language of revocation or is wholly inconsistent with the prior will. Since the question states the California document “purports to alter the distribution,” it suggests a partial revocation or amendment rather than a complete revocation. Under AS 13.12.507, a will or any part thereof is revoked by a subsequent writing intended to revoke or by a subsequent writing which executes a power of appointment or by inconsistency with the prior will. A holographic will is a valid testamentary instrument in Alaska. Therefore, the California document, if it meets the holographic will requirements of being entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed, will be given effect as a valid amendment or partial revocation of the Alaska will, provided it demonstrates testamentary intent and is not inconsistent with the prior will’s dispositive provisions. The crucial element is Alaska’s recognition of holographic wills, which bypasses the need for witnesses in this specific context.

In Alaska, the concept of “per stirpes” versus “per capita” distribution is crucial when a beneficiary predeceases the testator. Per stirpes means “by the roots,” where a deceased beneficiary’s share is divided among their descendants. Per capita means “by the head,” where the deceased beneficiary’s share is distributed equally among the surviving beneficiaries in that class. Alaska Statute §13.12.604 addresses the lapse of a devise. If a devisee fails to survive the testator, and the devise would have passed to the devisee’s issue, the devise passes to the devisee’s surviving issue per stirpes. However, if the will specifies a different distribution scheme or if the deceased beneficiary has no surviving issue, the devise might lapse and pass according to intestate succession or residue of the estate. In this scenario, the will explicitly directs a per stirpes distribution. Therefore, when Elara, who was to receive one-third of the residuary estate, predeceases the testator, her one-third share is divided equally among her two surviving children, Kael and Lyra. Each of Elara’s children will receive one-half of Elara’s one-third share, resulting in each receiving \( \frac{1}{2} \times \frac{1}{3} = \frac{1}{6} \) of the total residuary estate. The remaining beneficiaries, Finn and Anya, continue to receive their original one-third shares. The distribution is thus: Finn (1/3), Anya (1/3), Kael (1/6), and Lyra (1/6). The total is \( \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{6} + \frac{1}{6} = \frac{2}{6} + \frac{2}{6} + \frac{1}{6} + \frac{1}{6} = \frac{6}{6} = 1 \).

The question concerns the interpretation of a will in Alaska, specifically addressing a potential ambiguity regarding a specific bequest. The testator, Ms. Anya Sharma, bequeathed “all my shares in Northern Lights Energy Corporation” to her nephew, Kael. At the time of drafting the will, Ms. Sharma owned 500 shares of common stock in Northern Lights Energy Corporation. However, prior to her death, she sold these 500 shares and, using the proceeds, purchased 1,000 shares of preferred stock in the same corporation. The critical legal principle here is the doctrine of ademption by extinction, which applies when specifically bequeathed property is no longer in the testator’s estate at the time of death. Alaska law, like many jurisdictions, generally follows the rule that if a specific bequest fails due to ademption by extinction, the beneficiary receives nothing unless the will indicates a contrary intent. In this scenario, the common stock that was the subject of the specific bequest no longer exists in Ms. Sharma’s estate. The purchase of preferred stock with the proceeds from the sale of the common stock does not revive the original bequest, as the new property is not substantially the same as the old. Therefore, Kael would not be entitled to the preferred shares under the specific bequest as written. The explanation does not involve any calculations.

In Alaska, the concept of a will being “self-proving” is established by statute, specifically Alaska Statute §13.12.507. A will is considered self-proving if the testator and witnesses execute a separate affidavit or clause within the will itself, in the presence of a notary public. This affidavit attests to the proper execution of the will. When a will is self-proving, the court can accept it for probate without requiring the personal testimony of the witnesses, provided the affidavit is in proper form and executed correctly. This simplifies the probate process by avoiding the need to locate and depose witnesses, especially when they may be deceased, incapacitated, or difficult to find. The affidavit typically confirms that the testator signed the will freely and voluntarily, and that the witnesses signed in the testator’s presence and in the presence of each other. The absence of such an affidavit does not invalidate the will itself, but it does necessitate witness testimony or other evidence to prove due execution during the probate proceedings in Alaska. Therefore, a will that is not self-proving requires additional steps to validate its execution.

Alaska law, specifically AS 13.12.502, addresses the revocation of wills. A will can be revoked by a subsequent will or by a physical act of destruction. The physical act must be performed with the intent to revoke. When a testator tears, burns, cancels, obliterates, or destroys the will, or a part of it, with the intent to revoke, the will is revoked. This act of destruction must be done by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. The intent to revoke is a crucial element. If the physical act is performed without the intent to revoke, it does not effectuate a revocation. For instance, if a testator accidentally tears a page of their will while handling it, but without any intention to revoke the entire document, the will is not revoked. Similarly, if a testator burns a portion of their will to remove a specific clause, but intends the remainder of the will to stand, this can be a partial revocation, depending on the specific circumstances and the testator’s intent. The key is the conjunction of the physical act and the specific intent to revoke the will or a portion thereof. In the scenario presented, the testator’s action of burning a corner of the will, coupled with their explicit statement that they no longer wanted the will to be effective, demonstrates both the physical act of destruction and the requisite intent to revoke. This aligns with the statutory requirements for revocation by physical act.

The question tests the understanding of Alaska’s specific rules regarding the revocation of a will by a subsequent instrument, particularly when that instrument does not explicitly revoke prior wills. Alaska Statute 13.12.508(a) states that a will can be revoked by a subsequent will that revokes the prior will expressly or by inconsistency. In this scenario, the second will, while disposing of the testator’s entire estate, does not contain an express revocation clause. However, the disposition of the entire estate in the second will creates an inconsistency with the first will, which also attempted to dispose of the entire estate. When a subsequent will is wholly inconsistent with a prior will, the subsequent will revokes the prior will by inconsistency, even without an express revocation clause. Therefore, the second will effectively revokes the first will. The first will, dated October 15, 2018, was validly executed. The second will, dated March 20, 2023, also appears to be validly executed, and its provisions are entirely inconsistent with the first will’s disposition of the entire estate. Consequently, the second will revokes the first will by inconsistency. The holographic codicil, dated June 1, 2023, is invalid under Alaska law because Alaska does not recognize holographic wills unless they are also attested wills, meaning they must be signed by the testator and witnessed by two individuals. Since the codicil is holographic and lacks the required witnesses, it cannot revoke or modify the second will. Thus, the second will of March 20, 2023, is the last valid testamentary instrument and governs the distribution of the estate.

In Alaska, the concept of a “pour-over” will is a testamentary instrument designed to transfer assets from a decedent’s probate estate into a pre-existing trust. This technique is commonly used in conjunction with a living trust. The purpose is to consolidate estate assets under the management of the trust, thereby potentially simplifying administration and avoiding some of the complexities of traditional probate. For a pour-over will to be effective in Alaska, it must meet the same statutory requirements for a valid will as any other type of will, including being in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two credible witnesses who sign in the testator’s presence. AS 13.12.502 outlines these general requirements. Crucially, Alaska law permits a will to pour over assets into a trust that is identified in the will, even if the trust is unfunded during the testator’s lifetime, provided the trust is identified by its name and the date of its execution. This is often referred to as the “nontestamentary act” doctrine or the doctrine of incorporation by reference, though Alaska statutes specifically address this pour-over scenario. AS 13.12.510 provides the statutory basis for pour-over provisions into trusts. The assets transferred by the pour-over will become part of the trust corpus and are administered according to the terms of that trust. This means that the distribution of these assets will be governed by the trust agreement, not the will itself, after the pour-over takes effect. The effectiveness of a pour-over will hinges on the validity of both the will and the trust into which the assets are poured. If the trust is invalid or improperly created, the pour-over provision may fail, and the assets might then pass according to the laws of intestacy or other provisions of the will.

The core issue here revolves around the validity of a holographic codicil under Alaska law, specifically concerning the requirements for testamentary intent and the proper execution of such an instrument when it modifies an existing attested will. Alaska Statutes Section 13.12.502 addresses the execution of wills, requiring them to be signed by the testator and witnessed by two individuals. However, Alaska Statutes Section 13.12.505 provides an exception for holographic wills, stating that a will that does not satisfy Section 13.12.502 is valid as a holographic will if the signature and the material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. A codicil, being an amendment to a will, must also adhere to the formal requirements of a will or qualify as a holographic codicil. In this scenario, the document is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and expresses a clear intent to alter the distribution of specific assets, demonstrating testamentary intent. The crucial point is whether a document solely in the testator’s handwriting, intended to modify a prior attested will, can be considered a valid holographic codicil even if it lacks the attesting witnesses required for a standard codicil. Alaska law permits holographic wills, and by extension, holographic codicils, provided the material provisions and signature are in the testator’s handwriting. The fact that it modifies an existing will does not negate its holographic nature if it meets the statutory definition. Therefore, the document is a valid holographic codicil, effectively revoking the prior provision regarding the fishing lodge. The remaining provisions of the original will, not altered by the codicil, remain in effect.

The scenario describes a will that was executed in Alaska. The testator, Ms. Anya Sharma, a resident of Alaska, clearly intended to disinherit her estranged nephew, Mr. Kai Sharma. She explicitly stated this intention in her will. Alaska law, specifically AS 13.12.504, addresses the revocation of wills. A will can be revoked by a subsequent writing that revokes the prior will, or by an act of destruction coupled with intent to revoke. In this case, Ms. Sharma’s will contains a clear and unambiguous statement of her intent to revoke any prior wills and codicils. This constitutes a revocation by subsequent writing. Furthermore, the will’s explicit disinheritance clause directly addresses her intent regarding Mr. Kai Sharma. Alaska law presumes that a testator intends to dispose of their entire estate unless the will provides otherwise. Since Ms. Sharma’s will is specific about her intentions regarding her nephew, and there is no indication of a later, inconsistent will or codicil that was properly executed, the original will remains valid and effective. The existence of a validly executed will that clearly expresses the testator’s intent to revoke prior testamentary instruments and disinherit a specific heir is sufficient. The question hinges on the validity and revocatory effect of the document Ms. Sharma executed. Alaska Statutes Title 13, the Alaska Probate Code, governs these matters. Specifically, AS 13.12.504(a)(1) states that a will or codicil may be revoked by “executing a subsequent will that revokes the prior will.” The document described, with its clear intent to revoke prior instruments and its specific disposition of property, fits this definition. The fact that it was drafted by a non-attorney does not automatically invalidate it as a will in Alaska, as Alaska permits holographic wills (AS 13.12.505), although this document is described as attested, meaning it would require witnesses. The key is the clear intent to revoke and the valid execution of the document expressing that intent. The nephew’s claim is without merit because the will clearly states the intent to disinherit him, and the will itself is presented as a validly executed document that revokes prior testamentary intentions.

In Alaska, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. When a trust instrument is silent on a specific matter, or when ambiguities arise, Alaska law provides default rules and principles. For a trustee to be removed, a beneficiary must generally demonstrate that removal is necessary for the protection of the trust property or because of a serious breach of trust. AS 13.36.070(b) outlines grounds for removal, including substantial impairment of trust administration, a trustee’s unfitness, or persistent failure to account. The Alaska Supreme Court, in interpreting trust provisions, often looks to the settlor’s intent as expressed within the trust document. If the trust is unclear about the distribution of income upon the death of a life beneficiary before the final distribution of principal, the court will endeavor to ascertain the settlor’s intent. If the settlor’s intent cannot be definitively determined from the trust document, Alaska’s default rules for trusts, particularly those concerning the disposition of income accrued but undistributed at the termination of a prior interest, would apply. In the absence of explicit provisions, income accrued but not yet distributed at the time of a life beneficiary’s death is generally treated as principal and passes to the remaindermen. This is because income typically ceases to be income for the life beneficiary upon their death. The purpose is to prevent the estate of the deceased life beneficiary from claiming income that was not yet formally distributed or payable to them.

The scenario involves a trust created by a grantor with specific instructions for asset distribution upon their death. The key legal principle to consider is the validity of a testamentary trust in Alaska and the requirements for its proper creation and administration. Alaska law, like many other states, generally permits testamentary trusts, which are established through a will and come into existence upon the testator’s death and the probate of the will. The will must meet all statutory requirements for a valid will in Alaska, including being in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by two credible witnesses who sign in the testator’s presence. In this case, the will clearly expresses the testator’s intent to create a trust, identifies the trustee (the Alaska National Bank), specifies the trust property (the remaining assets of the estate), and outlines the beneficiaries and distribution terms. The fact that the trust is to be funded from the residue of the estate means it is a testamentary trust. The distribution to the minor grandchildren, contingent upon reaching age 25, is a common feature of testamentary trusts designed to manage assets for young beneficiaries. The trustee’s duty to invest and manage the assets prudently, as required by Alaska’s Uniform Prudent Investor Act, is implicit in their role. The scenario does not present any immediate issues of undue influence, lack of capacity, or improper execution that would invalidate the trust. Therefore, the trust is valid and will be administered according to its terms.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Bartholomew, executed a will in Alaska. Subsequently, he made a codicil to this will. A codicil is an amendment or addition to an existing will, and it must be executed with the same formalities as a will itself to be valid. In Alaska, as in most jurisdictions, a will or codicil must be signed by the testator and attested to by at least two witnesses who sign in the testator’s presence. The question focuses on the validity of a codicil that was signed by Bartholomew but only witnessed by one person, his niece, who is also a beneficiary under the original will. Under Alaska Statute 13.12.502, a will must be signed by the testator and by at least two individuals each of whom witnesses either the testator’s signing of the will or the testator’s acknowledgment of that signature or of the will. Alaska Statute 13.12.504 further clarifies that a codicil must be executed in the same manner as a will. Therefore, a codicil requires two attesting witnesses. The fact that the niece is a beneficiary raises the issue of interested witnesses. While Alaska Statute 13.12.505 generally validates a will even if an interested witness signs it, the witness may forfeit any devise or inheritance given to them in the will. However, this statute does not cure the defect of having only one witness when two are statutorily required for the codicil’s validity. Since the codicil was signed by only one witness, it fails to meet the statutory requirements for execution in Alaska. Consequently, the codicil is invalid, and the original will remains in effect as it was prior to the attempted amendment. The question tests the understanding of the formal requirements for executing a codicil and the impact of a defectively executed codicil on the original will. The correct answer is that the codicil is invalid due to insufficient witnessing, leaving the original will controlling.

In Alaska, the concept of a will being revoked by a subsequent marriage is governed by statute. Alaska Statute 13.12.308 addresses the effect of marriage on a pre-existing will. This statute generally provides that if a testator marries after executing a will, the surviving spouse receives a share in the testator’s estate as if the testator died intestate, unless the will provides for the spouse or the spouse is provided for in a way that shows an intent to disinherit the spouse. This statutory protection is often referred to as a “pretermitted spouse” provision, though the statute itself doesn’t use that exact term for post-marriage revocation. The intent is to prevent accidental disinheritance of a spouse who married the testator after the will was made. Therefore, if a person executes a will and subsequently marries, that marriage generally revokes the will, or at least provides the surviving spouse with intestate share rights, unless specific exceptions apply, such as a waiver in contemplation of marriage or a provision within the will itself that addresses the subsequent spouse. The Alaska statute aims to ensure that a spouse is not unintentionally left out of an estate plan due to a marriage that occurred after the will’s creation.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established within a will. The core issue is the effectiveness of a provision that attempts to delegate the trustee’s discretion to a third party, specifically the testator’s friend, for determining distributions to a beneficiary with a history of substance abuse. In Alaska, as in many jurisdictions, while a testator can grant discretion to a trustee, the extent to which this discretion can be delegated is limited. The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Alaska (AS 13.36), generally prohibits a trustee from delegating powers that are uniquely personal to the trustee or that the trust instrument specifies cannot be delegated. The power to make discretionary distributions, especially when tied to a beneficiary’s specific needs and circumstances (like rehabilitation from substance abuse), is often considered a core fiduciary duty that requires the trustee’s personal judgment. Allowing an external party, even a trusted friend, to solely dictate these distributions could be viewed as an improper delegation of a fiduciary responsibility. The trust instrument’s intent was to provide for the beneficiary’s welfare, and the trustee’s role is to exercise judgment in fulfilling that intent. If the trustee cannot exercise this judgment personally, the provision might be deemed invalid or the trustee may need to seek court guidance. The question hinges on whether the trustee’s duty to exercise discretion in making distributions can be lawfully delegated to a non-trustee for a critical aspect of trust administration. Alaska law emphasizes the trustee’s personal responsibility in managing trust assets and making distributions according to the trust’s terms and the beneficiary’s best interests.

In Alaska, the concept of a “holographic will” is crucial for understanding testamentary intent and execution formalities. A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator in their own handwriting. Alaska Statute 13.12.505 specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that a will that does not comply with AS 13.12.502 (attested wills) is valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature and the material provisions of the will are in the testator’s handwriting. This statute reflects a policy to honor the testator’s intent even when statutory formalities for attested wills are not met, provided the handwritten nature clearly demonstrates this intent. The key is that the entire will, or at least its material provisions, must be in the testator’s handwriting, and it must be signed by the testator. The date is not strictly required by the statute for validity, but it is highly recommended to avoid potential issues with multiple wills or questions about the testator’s capacity at the time of execution. The question tests the understanding of this specific Alaskan statutory provision regarding the validity of a will that is entirely handwritten by the testator, focusing on the core requirements of handwriting and signature.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, a resident of Alaska, executes a will. The will is signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses, who also sign the will in the testator’s presence. This method of execution aligns with the requirements for an attested will under Alaska law, specifically Alaska Statutes Title 13, Chapter 11, which governs wills. An attested will requires the testator’s signature or acknowledgment of the signature, and the signature of at least two witnesses who sign in the testator’s presence. The explanation of why other types of wills are not applicable is crucial. A holographic will, for instance, must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting and does not require witnesses in many jurisdictions, but Alaska does not recognize holographic wills unless they also meet the requirements of an attested will. A pour-over will is a type of will that directs assets into a trust, but its validity still depends on proper execution, which is met here. A joint will, made by two or more individuals, is also not indicated by the facts. Therefore, the primary classification of the will’s validity, based on its execution, is as an attested will, which is the standard and most common form of will execution in Alaska. The question probes the understanding of the fundamental requirements for a valid will in Alaska, focusing on the method of execution rather than its content or purpose.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, while residing in Alaska, executes a will that is entirely handwritten and signed by the testator. Alaska law, specifically Alaska Statutes Title 13, Chapter 13.12, addresses the validity of different types of wills. Among these, holographic wills are recognized if they are written, dated, and signed entirely in the testator’s handwriting. The key element for a holographic will’s validity is that no witnesses are required. Therefore, a will that meets these criteria, as described in the scenario, would be considered valid in Alaska. The question tests the understanding of the specific requirements for holographic wills under Alaska law, differentiating them from attested wills which necessitate witnesses. The purpose of this distinction is to provide a valid testamentary disposition for individuals who may not have immediate access to witnesses or legal counsel, provided the will is demonstrably the testator’s own creation and intent.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Ms. Anya Petrova, executed a will in Alaska. Later, she moved to California and, while experiencing significant cognitive decline, made a handwritten notation on her original Alaska will. This notation, intended to disinherit her estranged son, Ivan, states: “Ivan gets nothing. This is my final wish. Anya P.” Alaska law, specifically Alaska Statutes Title 13, Chapter 13.12, governs the validity and revocation of wills. While Alaska recognizes holographic wills, which are entirely in the testator’s handwriting, they do not require witnesses. However, the notation here is made *on* an existing attested will, not as a standalone holographic instrument. In Alaska, a will can be revoked by a subsequent instrument that revokes the prior will, or by performing a physical act on the will with the intent to revoke. The key here is the intent and the method. The notation, while expressing a testamentary intent to disinherit, is not a formal revocation clause in a new will or a codicil. Furthermore, the physical act of writing on the will could be construed as an attempt to revoke or alter the will. Alaska Statute 13.12.507 addresses revocation by physical act. For a physical act to be effective, it must be done by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, with the intent to revoke. The critical element here is whether the notation constitutes a valid revocation under Alaska law, considering the testator’s capacity at the time. Given Ms. Petrova’s cognitive decline, her intent to revoke might be challenged if it wasn’t a clear and unambiguous act of revocation on the entire will or a specific provision, and if her capacity to form that intent was compromised. The notation “Ivan gets nothing” directly addresses a disposition, implying a revocation of any prior provision for Ivan. However, Alaska Statute 13.12.507(b) states that if part of a will is validly revoked, the remaining parts remain valid. The question is whether this partial revocation by physical act, done by a potentially incapacitated testator, is effective. The notation is not a complete revocation of the entire will, but an attempted alteration or partial revocation. The efficacy of such a partial revocation, especially when made by a person whose capacity is in question, is often scrutinized. The most accurate characterization of the notation, considering its placement on an existing will and its intent to change a disposition, is an attempted codicil or a partial revocation by physical act. However, without proper execution requirements for a codicil (attestation), and given the potential lack of capacity for a valid physical act of revocation, the effectiveness is questionable. The scenario highlights the interplay between capacity, intent, and the methods of revocation under Alaska law. The notation itself, while in the testator’s handwriting, is not a holographic will in its entirety, but an alteration to an attested will. Such alterations, if intended to revoke or change provisions, must meet the statutory requirements for revocation or amendment. In this case, the act of writing on the will with the intent to disinherit is a physical act of revocation. The critical factor is whether Ms. Petrova had the testamentary capacity at the time she made the notation. If her cognitive decline was so severe that she lacked the capacity to understand the nature and effect of her actions or the extent of her property and the natural objects of her bounty, then the attempted revocation would be invalid. The notation is not a complete revocation of the entire will, but a specific alteration. Alaska law permits partial revocation by physical act if the intent is clear. The notation expresses a clear intent to disinherit Ivan. The question hinges on whether the physical act, combined with the intent, is sufficient under Alaska law, particularly considering the testator’s diminished capacity. The most likely outcome is that the physical act of writing on the will, coupled with the clear testamentary intent to disinherit Ivan, constitutes a valid partial revocation by physical act under Alaska Statute 13.12.507, provided the testator had sufficient capacity at the time of the act. The explanation focuses on the legal principles of revocation by physical act and the requirement of testamentary capacity in Alaska. The notation is a physical act on the will. The intent to revoke is expressed. The critical question is capacity. If she had capacity, the act is valid. The most plausible outcome is that the act is valid if capacity existed. The calculation is conceptual, not numerical. It involves applying legal principles to a fact pattern. 1. Identify the governing law: Alaska Wills, Trusts, and Estates law. 2. Identify the action taken: Handwritten notation on an existing attested will. 3. Identify the intent: To disinherit a beneficiary. 4. Identify potential legal challenges: Testator’s capacity at the time of the notation. 5. Determine the relevant statutory provisions: Alaska Statute 13.12.507 (Revocation by physical act). 6. Analyze the elements of revocation by physical act: (a) physical act (writing on the will), (b) intent to revoke. 7. Consider the impact of diminished capacity on intent and the validity of the act. 8. Conclude based on the application of Alaska law to the facts. The question is designed to test the understanding of revocation by physical act and the crucial element of testamentary capacity in Alaska. The notation is an attempt to alter the disposition of the estate. Alaska Statute 13.12.507 allows for revocation by physical act. The act here is writing on the will. The intent to disinherit is clearly stated. However, the validity of this act hinges on Ms. Petrova’s mental capacity at the time she made the notation. If she lacked the capacity to understand the nature and effect of her actions, the revocation would be invalid. The question probes the nuanced application of these principles.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Alaska Statute 13.12.505 specifically addresses holographic wills. It states that a will that does not comply with AS 13.12.502 (attested wills) is valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature and material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator. In this case, the entire document, including the list of beneficiaries and the disposition of assets, is in Mr. Abernathy’s handwriting, and it is signed by him. Therefore, it meets the criteria for a valid holographic will in Alaska. The fact that the document was not formally witnessed or notarized does not invalidate it under Alaska law, provided the holographic requirements are met. The subsequent attempt to create a new will that was not properly executed does not automatically revoke the valid holographic will. Revocation requires specific actions as outlined in Alaska Statute 13.12.507, such as a subsequent will, a physical act of destruction, or a written declaration of revocation executed with the same formalities as a will. Since the second document was not validly executed, it cannot revoke the first. The concept of testamentary intent is satisfied by the clear language of the document disposing of property upon death. Capacity is presumed unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

The scenario presents a situation involving a testamentary trust created within a will. The key issue is the interpretation of the trust’s spendthrift provision and its enforceability under Alaska law, particularly in relation to a beneficiary’s creditors. Alaska, like many states, recognizes spendthrift provisions as a valid means to protect trust assets from the beneficiary’s creditors. A spendthrift clause typically restricts the beneficiary’s ability to alienate or assign their interest in the trust and prevents creditors from reaching those interests to satisfy their claims. The purpose of such a clause is to ensure the trust provides for the beneficiary’s support and maintenance, free from the pressures of their financial obligations. In this case, the trust explicitly states that the beneficiary’s interest is not subject to the claims of creditors. This provision is generally upheld in Alaska, absent specific exceptions like claims for child support or spousal support, or if the beneficiary is also the settlor of the trust and attempts to shield their own assets. The question asks about the enforceability of the spendthrift provision against a judgment creditor. Given the explicit language and the general acceptance of spendthrift clauses in Alaska, the creditor’s ability to reach the trust assets would be limited by this provision. Therefore, the creditor cannot compel the trustee to distribute funds to satisfy the judgment, as the spendthrift clause shields the beneficiary’s interest from such claims. The trustee’s duty is to administer the trust according to its terms, which includes respecting the spendthrift provision.

The core issue here is the interpretation of the phrase “my remaining property” in the context of a will and a subsequent codicil that specifically addresses a parcel of real estate. Under Alaska law, a codicil is a supplement to a will, altering its provisions. A properly executed codicil generally republishes the will as modified by the codicil. When a codicil modifies a specific bequest or devise, it generally revokes only the provisions of the will that are inconsistent with the codicil. However, if the codicil uses language that clearly indicates an intention to revoke or alter other provisions, or if the codicil’s provisions are so pervasive that they essentially create a new testamentary plan, the effect can be broader. In this scenario, the codicil’s specific devise of the Anchorage property to Elara, followed by the phrase “all my remaining property,” implies that the testator intended to distribute whatever was left after the specific devise. The original will’s residuary clause, which left “all the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate” to Finn, is now directly impacted by the codicil. The codicil’s phrase “all my remaining property” functions as a new residuary clause, superseding the original one for any property not specifically addressed by the codicil itself. Therefore, property not explicitly devised in the codicil (e.g., the cabin in Denali and the investment portfolio) passes according to the terms of the codicil’s residuary language. The specific devise of the Anchorage property to Elara is honored. The remaining assets, the Denali cabin and the investment portfolio, are not specifically devised in the codicil. Thus, they fall under the phrase “all my remaining property” as stated in the codicil, which acts as the new residuary clause. This means that both the Denali cabin and the investment portfolio will pass to Elara. The original residuary clause in favor of Finn is effectively revoked by the codicil’s comprehensive disposition of “all my remaining property” to Elara, as it creates a new and complete residuary disposition.

In Alaska, a will is generally revoked by a subsequent will that expressly revokes the prior will or is wholly inconsistent with it. Alternatively, a will can be revoked by a physical act performed with the intent to revoke, such as burning, tearing, canceling, or obliterating the will. The Alaska Statutes, specifically AS 13.12.507, govern the revocation of wills. This statute outlines that a will can be revoked by another instrument that revokes the will, or by performing a physical act on the will itself. The intent to revoke is a crucial element for a physical act to be effective. Without a new will or a codicil that expressly revokes the prior one, or a clear physical act demonstrating intent to revoke, the original will remains valid. A divorce in Alaska generally revokes any provisions in a will that benefit the former spouse, as per AS 13.12.805, but it does not revoke the entire will unless specifically stated or if the former spouse was the sole beneficiary and executor. In this scenario, the testator’s act of tearing the will in half, coupled with their stated intent to destroy it, constitutes a valid revocation by physical act under Alaska law, provided the act was done with the specific intent to revoke. The key is the combination of the physical act and the testamentary intent.

In Alaska, the concept of a “pour-over” will is a testamentary instrument that directs the disposition of property not otherwise effectively devised in the will, typically by transferring it to a trust. This mechanism is often used in conjunction with a living trust. For a pour-over will to be effective, the underlying trust must be validly created and funded. Alaska Statute § 13.12.510 addresses the incorporation by reference of documents not executed in compliance with the statute, which can include trust documents referenced in a will. However, the more pertinent statutory provision for pour-over wills is found in Alaska Statute § 13.36.330, which specifically validates the transfer of property to a trust, even if the trust is amendable or revocable, or if the testator is the trustee or a co-trustee, provided the trust is identified in the will and its terms are set forth in a written instrument executed before or concurrently with the execution of the will. The key to the validity of a pour-over provision is the existence of a valid trust to receive the assets. If the trust is invalid or has been revoked prior to the testator’s death, the assets intended to be poured over would then typically be distributed according to the laws of intestacy or other provisions within the will, if any. The statute aims to prevent the intestacy of assets that the testator clearly intended to be managed by a trust. The question tests the understanding of how a pour-over will interacts with an existing trust under Alaska law, specifically focusing on the circumstances under which the pour-over provision would fail.