to penalize an interested person for contesting the will or instituting other proceedings relating to the estate is unenforceable if probable cause exists for instituting proceedings.”), 67 . See In re Hutchinson’s Estate, 577 P.2d 1074, 1074-77 (Alaska 1978) (construing predecessor family allowance statute and rejecting contention that family allowance did not take priority over estate expenses, certain prioritized claims, and “all other claims" against the estate); see also Richardson v. Estate of Berthelot, No. S-13696, 2013 WL 203271, at *10 (Alaska Jan. 16, 2013) (affirming order granting surviving spouse her three statutory allowances, "which have priority over all other claims” against the estate). 68 . Cf. In re Estate of Peterson, 254 Neb. 334, 576 N.W.2d 767, 769, 772 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Estate of Dunlap, 199 Mont. 488,
holding adult emancipated child was entitled to statutory exempt property allowance despite specific will provision that under no circumstances should any share of estate go to that child holding that parents of adult child may recover for loss of comfort and companionship of adult child where they were next of kin under wda holding child specifically disinherited in will was entitled to statutory exempt property allowance recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate