Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 13.12.514 (2026)
Contracts concerning succession
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 13.12.514. Contracts concerning succession.
(a) A contract to make a will or devise, or not to revoke a will or devise, or to die intestate, if executed after January 1, 1997, may be established only by
(1) provisions of a will stating material provisions of the contract;
(2) an express reference in a will to a contract and extrinsic evidence proving the terms of the contract; or
(3) a writing signed by the decedent evidencing the contract.
(b) The execution of a joint will or mutual wills does not create a presumption of a contract not to revoke the will or wills.
(a) A contract to make a will or devise, or not to revoke a will or devise, or to die intestate, if executed after January 1, 1997, may be established only by
(1) provisions of a will stating material provisions of the contract;
(2) an express reference in a will to a contract and extrinsic evidence proving the terms of the contract; or
(3) a writing signed by the decedent evidencing the contract.
(b) The execution of a joint will or mutual wills does not create a presumption of a contract not to revoke the will or wills.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2009–2019 · leading case: Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 (Alaska 2009).
Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 (Alaska 2009). “We conclude that AS 13.12.514, which provides that oral succession contracts are unenforceable, controls.”
In re Est. of Hatten, 440 P.3d 256 (Alaska 2019). “Finding no error with the court's interpretation of the alleged contract between Toland and Hatten, we decline to address her arguments regarding enforceability of lifetime support contracts in Alaska. And to the extent Toland argues Hatten orally promised or assured her after…”
— Alaska Stat. § 13.12.514(a) — 2 cases
Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 (Alaska 2009). “We conclude that AS 13.12.514, which provides that oral succession contracts are unenforceable, controls.”
In re Est. of Hatten, 440 P.3d 256 (Alaska 2019). “Finding no error with the court's interpretation of the alleged contract between Toland and Hatten, we decline to address her arguments regarding enforceability of lifetime support contracts in Alaska. And to the extent Toland argues Hatten orally promised or assured her after…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.