Matter of the Estate of Kottke v. Parker

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Estate of Bavilla

    Supreme Court No. S-16258 (Alaska Jun. 14, 2017)

    A factual finding is clearly erroneous when "we are left with 'a definite and firm conviction on [review of] the entire record that a mistake has been made, although there may be evidence to support the finding.' "Crittell v. Bingo, 36 P.3d 634, 638 (Alaska 2001) (citing In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243, 245 (Alaska 2000); In re Estate of Kraft, 374 P.2d 413, 416 (Alaska 1962)). Id. (quoting Kottke, 6 P.3d at 245).

  2. Enders v. Parker

    125 P.3d 1027 (Alaska 2006)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that because Rule 11 sanctions are not mandatory, trial court did not err in failing to impose them even where trial court made finding that party to be sanctioned lacked good faith

    She was a long-time acquaintance of Joel Kottke; she became closer to him in his later years, developed a relationship with him very similar to a marriage, and also served as his care-giver. We set out the facts of this case in greater detail in Enders v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11 (Alaska 2003), and In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243 (Alaska 2000). The 1997 will replaced a 1983 will that Joel Kottke had executed while he was married to Martha Kottke. Per the 1983 will, Joel left his entire estate to Martha.

  3. Crittell v. Bingo

    36 P.3d 634 (Alaska 2001)   Cited 12 times
    Listing various factors to consider

    In reviewing a trial court's findings for clear error, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below.See In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243, 245 (Alaska 2000); In re Estate of Kraft, 374 P.2d 413, 416 (Alaska 1962); see also Alaska R.Civ.P. 52(a).Kottke, 6 P.3d at 245 (quoting Mathis v. Meyeres, 574 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska 1978)).

  4. Riddell v. Edwards

    32 P.3d 4 (Alaska 2001)   Cited 8 times

    In re Estate of Kraft, 374 P.2d 413, 416 (Alaska 1962); see also Alaska R.Civ.P. 52(a); Paskvan v. Mesich, 455 P.2d 229, 232 (Alaska 1969).In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243, 245 (Alaska 2000) (quoting Mathis v. Meyeres, 574 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska 1978)); see also Paskvan, 455 P.2d at 232, 240.See Kottke, 6 P.3d at 245 (citing Mathis, 574 P.2d at 449).

  5. Enders v. Parker

    66 P.3d 11 (Alaska 2003)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that personal representative in will contest barred from claiming fees as prevailing party under Rule 82 because AS 13.16.435 expressly governs fee awards in such cases: "If a specific statutory scheme for attorney's fees exists, Civil Rule 82 does not apply."

    We affirmed the superior court's thoughtful and thorough decision.In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243, 247 (Alaska 2000).B. Proceedings

  6. Fletcher v. Trademark Construction

    80 P.3d 725 (Alaska 2003)   Cited 7 times
    Upholding factual findings after concluding in part that they were not “internally contradictory”

    Farmer v. State, 788 P.2d 43, 50 (Alaska 1990).Crittell v. Bingo, 36 P.3d 634, 638 (Alaska 2001) (quoting In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243, 245 (Alaska 2000) (quoting Mathis v. Meyeres, 574 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska 1978))).IV. DISCUSSION