Matter of the Estate of Kottke v. Parker

2 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. 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