In the Matter of the Estate of Janice v. Evensen

Summary

The court held that the 1994 Will was a valid holographic will because Janice Evensen’s handwritten additions identified both the property and the charitable devisees, and the evidence did not establish a lack of testamentary intent. It affirmed rejection of the 2007 Will because the original was missing, creating a presumption of revocation that the Alaska SPCA did not rebut by clear and convincing evidence; the 2007 document also independently failed the requirements for a valid will or holographic will. The court reversed the contrary ruling regarding the 1994 Will and remanded for further proceedings.