an action at law ... [that] cannot be affected by laches”); cf. T.P.D. v. A.C.D., 981 P.2d 116, 119-22 (Alaska 1999) (refusing to apply laches to bar a man from legally disestablishing paternity but acknowledging that equitable estoppel may apply to such an action). 27 . State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enf't Div. ex rel. Valdez v. Valdez, 941 P.2d 144, 152 (Alaska 1997). 28 . See AS 13.06.015 ("Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [Alaska’s Uniform Probate Code,] AS 13.06 - AS 13.36, the principles of law and equity supplement those provisions,”); see also Pestrikoff v. Hoff, 278 P.3d 281, 286 (Alaska 2012) (noting that AS 13.06.015 "permits a court to apply equitable principles to supplement the probate code’’); Riddell v. Edwards, 76 P.3d 847, 858 (Alaska 2003) (<HOLDING>); id. at 855 ("Alaska’s Uniform Probate Code
holding a court of criminal appeals may not exercise its sentence approval powers to criticize a state court conviction recognizing that court may intervene in arbitration proceeding by invoking equitable powers recognizing that in decidingclaims arising under the probate code a court may exercise its equitable powers unless explicitly forbidden to do so holding that a claim of quantum meruit was appropriate in a probate case because under section 103 principles of law and equity supplement the provisions of the utah uniform probate code unless displaced by particular provisions of the code recognizing broad equitable power of probate court to act in best interests of persons in its jurisdiction