Appeal
from the Superior Court No. 3KN-13-00028 PR of the State of
Alaska, Third Judicial District, Kenai, Anna Moran, Judge.
Andrew
J. Fierro, Law Offices of Andrew J. Fierro, Anchorage, for
Appellant Beverly Toland.
Sonja
Redmond, Law Office of Sonja Redmond, Soldotna, for Appellee
Katrina Flatten, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Jerry Flatten.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and
Carney, Justices.
OPINION
WINFREE, JUSTICE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A man
died intestate after cohabiting for over 20 years with a
woman. The decedent had named the woman as the sole
beneficiary of his individual retirement account, but he did
not provide for her to inherit any of his other assets. She
sought a larger share of his estate, arguing that (1) the
decedent had promised to support her financially if she moved
to Alaska to live with him and (2) the court should divide
the decedent's property according to their intent because
they were domestic partners. A special master recommended
rejecting her claims, and the superior court adopted the
master's recommendation. Because we conclude that the
superior court did not err in interpreting the scope of the
parties' alleged contractual agreement or in rejecting
the woman's domestic partnership claim, we affirm.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A.
Facts
Jerry
Hatten and Beverly Toland met in California in 1989. Hatten,
who lived in Alaska, returned to California in 1992 and
reconnected with Toland. According to Toland, Hatten asked
her to leave her job, friends, and family behind to live with
him in Kasilof. Hatten purportedly assured her that if she
relocated "he would take care of [her]" and that
she "wouldn't have to work." Toland agreed, and
she moved into the house that she would occupy with Hatten
for over 20 years.
Hatten
was a commercial fisherman and paid for most of the
couple's shared expenses. Toland worked at various jobs,
first at a grocery store, then at a cannery, and later as a
bartender. She also saw to domestic chores, such as cooking
and cleaning. According to Toland, neither she nor Hatten had
any other romantic partners, there was never any period of
physical separation between them, and they shared a bed until
the final years of Hatten's life, when he was
experiencing discomfort from various ailments and opted to
sleep on the couch.
Neither
Toland nor Hatten wanted to formally marry; each had previous
marriages ending in divorce. Hatten's and Toland's
financial and legal affairs consequently were less
intertwined than their shared daily life. They had two joint
credit cards, but they maintained separate checking accounts.
Most significantly, Hatten exclusively owned the house they
lived in.
Hatten
built the house in 1978 and paid off the building loan
shortly after Toland's arrival in Alaska. In 1998 he
obtained a loan to purchase the leased land where he had
built the house, and he subsequently paid off that loan
around 2007. A 1998 appraisal valued the property at $190,
800. Toland did not contribute to the loan payments nor was
she listed on utility accounts, which Hatten paid. At no time
did Hatten grant title to Toland. Hatten has two adult
children from his previous marriage, a daughter and a son.
Although Hatten's daughter had for some time lived
outside his home, it remained a primary residence for his
son, who is physically disabled.
Toland
gave Hatten a will kit five years before his death. Hatten
suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and
when he battled pneumonia in January 2013 his friends and
family asked how he planned to take care of his estate and
urged him to create a will. In February Hatten named Toland
the sole beneficiary of his $ 194, 000 Edward Jones IRA
account. The beneficiary designation form lists Toland's
relationship to Hatten as "Domestic Partner." A
month later Hatten suffered a heart attack and died. He left
no will.
B.
Proceedings
Toland
filed a claim against the estate in September 2013, seeking,
in relevant part, a "fair division of the value of the
parties' [domestic partnership] assets... taking into
account [Hatten's] promise to take care of [her] for the
rest of her life." The estate opposed her claim,
requesting that it be denied in full and that Toland be
required to vacate Hatten's residence.
A
probate master conducted an evidentiary hearing to consider
Toland's claims. The parties and witnesses offered
conflicting testimony regarding the nature of Toland and
Hatten's relationship. Some of the estate's witnesses
described the relationship as one of convenience, not that of
two romantic or life partners. They pointed to the fact that
Hatten never claimed Toland as a dependent on his tax returns
but once actually claimed her as a housekeeper. But Toland
and others close to the pair described their relationship as
that of a loving husband and wife, less the paperwork.
Testimony
about Hatten's intentions regarding his property also
conflicted. The estate's witnesses testified that Hatten
was private about his financial affairs and never intended to
give Toland the house. According to Hatten's daughter,
her father said, "[h]is assets and his money and his
things were none of our business," and when she asked if
he had something in order Hatten replied, "don't
worry, you and [your brother] will be fine, otherwise,
it's none of your business."
Toland
and other witnesses painted a very different picture of
Hatten's intentions. Toland testified that Hatten told
her "several times" he was going to make a will and
"he wanted [her] to have [the] house" so that she
could sell it, because it was too expensive and difficult for
her to manage its upkeep alone. Toland stated that she had
given Hatten a will kit, but she described him as a
"procrastinator" when it came to paperwork. Toland
had been unaware that Hatten had made her the sole
beneficiary of his IRA; she testified that "[a]t one
point, he told me that I was going to get 52% and his three
grandsons were going to get the [rest] .... [A]ll of a
sudden, he - he decided to change it. ... I didn't even
know about it until after the fact." According to
Toland, when she saw the paperwork and asked Hatten about it,
he explained that his recent bout with pneumonia "opened
his eyes that it was time for him to start taking care of
things" and he was "going to get a will
going."
Hatten's
cousin recalled speaking with Hatten about a will "three
or four times" as his health declined, and he had said,
"I promise you that [Toland] will always have this roof
over her head. This is her home." Another of
Hatten's cousins testified Hatten said that Toland was
"going to be taken care of and that he had "been
seeing to it a little bit at a time." Finally, a
neighbor who worked in real estate testified to a discussion
she had with Hatten a month before he died, in which he both
asked her for help with the IRA account and inquired about
what he needed to do to get the house in Toland's name.
The
probate master found that since "at least 1994,"
Hatten and Toland "lived together as a committed couple
in [Hatten's] home." However, beyond the
parties' general statements the master concluded that,
"little is known about [Hatten's] specific
intentions." The master found that, although Hatten made
inquiries about transferring title of his house to Toland and
received a will kit five years prior to his death, he
"took no additional steps to transfer title, write down
his intentions, or create a trust or will." Instead,
approximately a month before his death, he named Toland a
"100% beneficiary of his $194, 000 Edward Jones IRA
account."
The
master concluded that Alaska's intestate succession laws
do not contemplate the unmarried domestic partner. The master
noted that the cases Toland cited "authorize courts to
divide unmarried cohabitants' property according to the
parties' intentions" upon separation but concluded
that "[n]one provide direct authority regarding property
division after death." The master concluded the
"subjective intentions" of a decedent with ...