Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractattorneystatuteappealtrialwilljury trial

contractattorneystatutewill

Related Cases

Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446

Facts

Elizabeth Sarren owned a house in Unalakleet and had a will that bequeathed the house to her daughter, Blanche Cragle. Marie Gray, Sarren's granddaughter, claimed that Sarren had made an oral agreement to give her the house if she cared for Sarren until her death. After Sarren's death, Cragle sought to evict Gray, leading to a jury trial where the court awarded the house to Gray based on the jury's findings regarding the alleged oral agreement. Cragle appealed the decision, arguing that the oral agreement was unenforceable.

Issue

Whether the alleged oral agreement between Elizabeth Sarren and Marie Gray constituted a valid succession contract under Alaska law, specifically AS 13.12.514, which renders oral agreements to make a devise unenforceable.

Rule

Alaska Statute 13.12.514 states that contracts concerning succession, including oral agreements to make a devise, are unenforceable unless they are in writing or referenced in a will.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the alleged oral agreement between Gray and Sarren was a contract to make a devise. It concluded that the agreement was intended to transfer the house only upon Sarren's death, thus qualifying as a succession contract under AS 13.12.514. Since the agreement was not documented in writing or referenced in Sarren's will, the court held that it was unenforceable as a matter of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the oral agreement was unenforceable under AS 13.12.514, and vacated the award of attorney's fees to Gray.

Who won?

Blanche Cragle prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the oral agreement claimed by Gray was unenforceable under Alaska law.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Estate of Mochty, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr., 2018 WL 4927529

Insurance Rating Bd. v. Commissioner of Ins., 356 Mass. 184, 248 N.E.2d 500

Rollins v. Branch Banking, Trust Co. of Va., Not Reported in S.E.2d, 56 Va. Cir. 147, 2001 WL 34037931

Matter of Various Water Rights in Lake DeSmet Reservoir, Bd. of Control, Docket No. II-77-2-1, 623 P.2d 764

In re Estate of Feinberg, 2014 IL App (1st) 112219, 6 N.E.3d 310, 379 Ill.Dec. 233