Toni 1 Trust, by Tangwall v. Wacker, 413 P.3d 1199 (Alaska 2018)

Reviewed by Elizabeth A. Tresp, JD, LL.M., trust & probate litigator · Updated August 2026

What the court actually held

AS 34.40.110(k) grants Alaska courts “exclusive jurisdiction over an action brought under a cause of action or claim for relief that is based on a transfer of property to a trust that is the subject of this section.” Relying on Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. George, 233 U.S. 354 (1914) and Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006), the court held the statute cannot bind courts of other sovereigns, and affirmed dismissal of a declaratory-judgment complaint seeking to void Montana and federal bankruptcy fraudulent-transfer judgments for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

What actually happened

Montana state court entered default judgments against Donald Tangwall and family. In 2010, before the last judgment issued, his mother-in-law and his wife transferred two parcels to the Toni 1 Trust. Montana entered default fraudulent-transfer judgments; the Wackers bought a half-interest at sheriff’s sale. The mother-in-law then filed Chapter 7 in Alaska and the trustee obtained a further default fraudulent-transfer judgment. The Alaska declaratory action was the last card, and it failed.

How it is commonly miscited

• “Alaska’s Supreme Court gutted the Alaska DAPT.” It did not rule on whether the transfer restrictions are enforceable, on the burden of proof, or on the limitations period.
• “This proves DAPTs fail.” The transferors were third parties moving property while a judgment was imminent, and every adverse ruling was a default judgment. The merits were never litigated anywhere. Most of the appellate arguments were held waived for failure to cite authority.

The planning lesson

The fair takeaway is narrow and worth knowing: a DAPT statute’s exclusive-jurisdiction clause offers no protection against a sister-state or federal court with personal jurisdiction over the settlor or transferee. A creditor can litigate at home, win at home, and bring the judgment to the trust’s state for enforcement. Situs choice buys favorable substantive law; it does not buy a forum.

Why this matters for your plan

Reading the cases is not an academic exercise. Every one of these decisions turned on something a planner controls: when the structure was created, how much control the settlor kept, whether the governing-law choice was backed by real contacts, and whether the client told the truth on the record. We build to the way these disputes are actually litigated, because Elizabeth litigates them. To discuss how your situation maps onto this body of law, call (858) 755-6672.