Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Seventeen-year-old Josiah Wheeler rented a cabin in Tok, Alaska, owned by Deborah Overly and Terry Summers. Wheeler was found dead in the cabin’s bathtub, and an autopsy revealed he died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning. A deputy fire marshal discovered that a propane water heater in the bathroom had an exhaust flue unconnected to any external venting, causing high levels of carbon monoxide to accumulate when the bathroom door was shut. The cabin was covered under a homeowners insurance policy issued by Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, which included a pollution exclusion clause.Wheeler’s estate and his parents sought an out-of-court settlement with the homeowners, who notified Garrison of the claims. Garrison denied coverage, citing the pollution exclusion clause, and refused to defend the homeowners. The homeowners confessed liability and assigned their right to proceed against Garrison to Wheeler’s estate. The estate then filed suit against Garrison in federal district court, seeking damages and a declaratory ruling that the policy provided coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to Garrison, concluding that the pollution exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for carbon monoxide poisoning.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of Alaska, asking whether the pollution exclusion in the homeowners insurance policy excluded coverage for claims arising from carbon monoxide exposure. The Supreme Court of Alaska concluded that an insured could reasonably expect coverage for injuries resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide from an improperly installed home appliance. The court noted that the policy’s broad definition of “pollutants” and the specific exclusions for lead paint and asbestos suggested a narrower interpretation of the pollution exclusion. Therefore, the court held that the pollution exclusion did not bar coverage for Wheeler’s death. View "The Estate Wheeler v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A man on probation was subject to a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) requiring him to give a day's notice to security personnel before visiting the medical center where his former girlfriend worked. The woman alleged that the man violated this notice provision multiple times over three years, causing her severe emotional distress and job loss. The probation officer investigated the alleged violations but decided not to revoke the man's probation or penalize him.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, granted summary judgment for the State, finding no genuine issues of material fact, that the probation officer fulfilled her duty of reasonable care, and that her actions were shielded by discretionary function immunity. The woman appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment for the State regarding whether the probation officer fulfilled her operational duty to investigate the alleged violations. The court further concluded that the probation officer's subsequent decisions were shielded from suit by discretionary function immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment. View "Smith v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Robert Wills and Aniela Humphries, who share three children, divorced in January 2012. They initially shared physical custody on a 2/3-1/3 basis, switching to a 50-50 arrangement in January 2013. In November 2020, Wills refused to return their middle child to Humphries, prompting her to file a motion to enforce the custody agreement. The court found Wills had disobeyed the custody order and undermined the child's relationship with Humphries. It ordered a gradual transition back to 50-50 custody.Humphries sought attorney’s fees for enforcing the custody order, and the court awarded her $21,000, considering the parties' financial circumstances and the importance of the issues. Despite the court's order, Wills moved to South Carolina with the middle child and later sought to modify custody. The court granted him primary physical custody and modified child support, requiring Humphries to pay $1,070.89 monthly.Humphries requested an offset of the child support she owed against the attorney’s fees Wills owed her. The court granted the offset, finding that manifest injustice would result if Humphries had to pay child support while Wills owed her a substantial sum. The court determined that Wills still owed $15,641.09 in attorney’s fees and ordered Humphries to begin paying child support in March 2024.The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order, holding that the superior court has discretion to order an offset against child support if good cause exists and the offset is in the children’s best interests. The court found that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that manifest injustice would result without the offset and that the offset was in the children’s best interests. View "Wills v. Humphries" on Justia Law

A resident of Alaska filed a lawsuit challenging amendments to the State’s predator control program. The resident claimed that after the changes were implemented, she observed a noticeable decrease in the brown bear population at Katmai National Park, where she frequently visited to view bears. She argued that the Board of Game violated its constitutional and statutory duties by not providing adequate notice and opportunities for public input before adopting the changes, which expanded the program to target bears.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, dismissed the complaint, concluding that the resident lacked standing and was not entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of the regulatory change. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the Board of Game and the Commissioner of the Department of Fish & Game.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and held that the resident had standing because she demonstrated an injury to her interest in viewing bears at Katmai National Park, which was sufficient to show standing. The court also concluded that she was entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of the regulation. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of her complaint, vacated the associated award of attorney’s fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bittner v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

A young adult with intellectual and developmental disabilities, referred to as G.J.F., moved to Alaska in 2021 and was referred by a homeless shelter to Volunteers of America Alaska (VOA), a nonprofit organization. VOA provided intensive case management support, including housing assistance and help with applying for government benefits. Despite initial resistance from G.J.F., a consistent therapeutic relationship was eventually established. VOA petitioned the superior court to appoint the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F., arguing that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs.The superior court appointed a visitor and scheduled a hearing. The visitor's report and a neuropsychological evaluation indicated that G.J.F. had multiple mental health diagnoses and significant difficulties with decision-making and daily living tasks. The master recommended a full guardianship, but the Public Guardian objected, leading to an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, VOA staff testified about the extensive support they provided to G.J.F. and the limitations of their services. The court found that VOA's services were not sustainable and that G.J.F. needed decision-making support that only a full guardian could provide.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's order appointing the Public Guardian as a full guardian for G.J.F. The court held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining that less restrictive alternatives were not feasible or adequate to meet G.J.F.'s needs. The court found that the record contained clear and convincing evidence supporting the need for a full guardianship, given G.J.F.'s significant vulnerabilities and the limitations of VOA's support. The court also noted that relying on the visitor's report, which was not admitted into evidence, was harmless error because the same information was provided through other evidence. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of G.J.F" on Justia Law

Dawn Maynor and Timothy Golden, who resided together in Alaska, moved to Oklahoma and then Louisiana due to Timothy's military transfers. They married in Oklahoma in 2017 and had a child in Louisiana in February 2018. The couple separated shortly after the child's birth, and in May 2018, they filed for dissolution of their marriage in Alaska, claiming Alaska residency despite living in Illinois and Louisiana. The superior court in Alaska granted the dissolution in August 2018, including a custody order giving Dawn primary physical custody and shared legal custody.Timothy later moved back to Alaska and, in September 2023, filed a motion to modify the custody arrangement, seeking joint physical custody. Dawn did not oppose this motion but instead filed a motion for relief from the 2018 custody order, arguing that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide child custody initially. The superior court denied Dawn's motion, concluding that Alaska was the child's home state due to the parents' claimed residency and the child's temporary absence from Alaska.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and determined that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make the initial child custody determination. The court found that the child had never lived in Alaska, and Louisiana was the child's home state within six months before the commencement of the dissolution proceedings. Since Louisiana had jurisdiction and did not decline it, the superior court in Alaska could not assert jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the superior court's denial of Dawn's motion for relief from judgment and vacated the original custody order due to the lack of jurisdiction. View "Maynor v. Golden" on Justia Law

Peter and Julia Chapman married in 2007 and have one minor child. Julia filed for legal separation in 2018, and they agreed to share custody and calculate child support based on their incomes. In July 2020, they stipulated that Peter would pay $500 per month in child support through December 2020, with modifications based on their incomes starting January 2021. The court adopted this stipulation. In April 2021, Peter's child support obligation was set at $31.35 per month based on his 2020 income of $45,000.Julia moved to modify child support in May 2022, believing Peter's income had increased due to his acquisition of new businesses and the creation of the Cephas Trust. Peter opposed the modification, arguing there was no proof of increased income. The court ordered Peter to provide proof of income, revealing his 2021 adjusted gross income was $861,382. Julia pursued the modification, arguing Peter's income justified a higher child support obligation.The Superior Court of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, held an evidentiary hearing. Peter testified that his primary income was his salary from Alaska Auto Rentals (AAR), and the remaining income was from businesses in the Cephas Trust, which he controlled but chose not to draw from. The court found that Peter had access to the trust's income and was underreporting his income by taking a low salary. The court imputed income to Peter based on the trust's earnings and set his child support obligation at $1,167.35 per month, using the income cap of $126,000.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the superior court did not err in finding a material change of circumstances or abuse its discretion by imputing income to Peter. The court concluded that Peter's control over the trust and its income justified the increased child support obligation. View "Chapman v. Chapman" on Justia Law

An assistant public defender resigned unexpectedly, leading the Public Defender Agency to propose a temporary reassignment plan for her cases until a permanent replacement could be hired. The superior court rejected this plan, as it did not assign specific attorneys to the cases. The court ordered the Agency to inform affected clients that they would need to waive their rights to effective assistance of counsel until a permanent attorney was assigned, or the Agency would withdraw. The Agency managed to assign specific attorneys to all but one case, from which it withdrew as ordered. The court then appointed the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to represent that client. OPA moved to withdraw, arguing that its appointment was unauthorized under AS 44.21.410 and that the superior court exceeded its authority. The superior court denied the motion, leading OPA to file an original application for relief with the court of appeals, which certified the application to the Alaska Supreme Court.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the superior court did not err by intervening in the affected cases. The court determined that the Agency's lack of capacity to provide effective representation constituted a conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct and the state and federal constitutions. The court concluded that when the Agency has a conflict due to lack of capacity, AS 44.21.410(a)(4) requires that OPA be assigned to represent the affected clients. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's order appointing OPA to represent the client, explaining that the superior court had a duty to ensure the client's right to effective assistance of counsel and that a lack of capacity can amount to a conflict of interest requiring OPA's appointment. View "Office of Public Advocacy v. Superior Court, First Judicial District" on Justia Law

A personal care assistant (PCA) in a Medicaid program was investigated for submitting inaccurate records of services provided. The investigation substantiated the allegations, and a committee within the overseeing agency decided to terminate her from the program. The PCA was notified and informed of her right to appeal. An administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended adopting the committee’s determination, which the agency did. The PCA appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the agency’s decision. The PCA then appealed, raising several issues.The superior court found the PCA’s Open Meetings Act claim untimely and concluded that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) did not apply because the sanction procedures were interpretations of existing regulations. It also determined that the PCA had no property interest in future reimbursements from the program and that her liberty interest in her reputation was not implicated. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency’s findings and the termination sanction.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case. It concluded that the PCA’s Open Meetings Act claim was untimely and that the APA did not require the Department to promulgate new regulations for the sanctions committee. The court also found that the PCA had a protected liberty interest in her reputation but determined that she received due process through the hearing before the ALJ. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Department’s findings and that the sanctions imposed were reasonable. The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding the agency’s termination of the PCA. View "Thomason v. State" on Justia Law

Joseph Rivera's driver's license was permanently revoked by New York authorities after he was convicted of three alcohol-related driving offenses between 2000 and 2010. Rivera moved to Alaska in 2011 but did not apply for an Alaska driver's license until 2021. His application was denied by the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) because his license was still revoked in New York. Rivera sought reinstatement of his driving privileges in New York, but his requests were denied. He then requested an administrative hearing with the Alaska DMV, which upheld the denial of his application.Rivera appealed to the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, arguing that the DMV misapplied Alaska's licensing statutes and that the statutes conflicted. The superior court affirmed the DMV's decision, rejecting Rivera's arguments.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and held that Alaska's driver’s license statutes do not conflict. The court found that the statutes operate in harmony, with the Compact providing a framework for considering out-of-state driving records and Alaska's statutes imposing additional requirements. Specifically, Alaska Statute 28.15.031(b)(1) prevents the DMV from issuing a license to anyone whose driving privileges are revoked in any jurisdiction, including out-of-state revocations. The court concluded that the DMV properly applied this statute in denying Rivera's application.The court also addressed Rivera's arguments regarding equal protection and manifest injustice, finding them unpersuasive. The court noted that Rivera had not exhausted all available appeals in New York and that the DMV's decision did not result in manifest injustice. Consequently, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the superior court's judgment and upheld the DMV's decision to deny Rivera's application for a driver's license. View "Rivera v. State" on Justia Law