Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between the developers of an aviation-centric community and the homeowners' association regarding the transfer and use of special declarant rights associated with a unique lot. The developers sold the lot to new owners, but the deed did not clearly convey the special declarant rights, and the homeowners' association was not informed about the transfer of these rights. The new owners sought a declaratory judgment that they held the special declarant rights, allowing them to bypass the association's oversight for construction, rent aircraft facilities to non-lot owners, and permit those non-lot owners to use the airstrip. The association argued otherwise and also contended that the lot owners must make tiedowns available to other community members.The Superior Court of Alaska granted summary judgment in favor of the association, ruling that the new owners did not obtain the special declarant rights, that construction on the lot required the association's approval, that the lot owners must make tiedowns available to other members, and that only lot owners could use the airstrip and aircraft facilities. The court also awarded attorney's fees to the association.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and found that the statutory warranty deed was ambiguous regarding the transfer of the special declarant rights. The court reversed the summary judgment on this issue and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the new owners obtained the special declarant rights. The court affirmed the requirement for the lot owners to make tiedowns available to other members but reversed the determination that only lot owners could use the airstrip and aircraft facilities, finding the declaration ambiguous on this point. The court vacated the award of attorney's fees and remanded for a new prevailing party determination. View "Meyers v. Sky Ranch, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a medical malpractice suit brought by the parents of a stillborn child against the midwives who attended the birth. The plaintiffs alleged that the midwives failed to obtain informed consent for delivery by midwife at a birth center instead of by a physician at a hospital. They claimed the midwives did not disclose the risks associated with midwife delivery for an expectant mother of advanced maternal age with a history of miscarriage. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the midwives, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that midwife delivery caused the stillbirth.The superior court found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to establish proximate cause, a necessary element in informed consent claims. The court noted that the plaintiffs needed to show both that they would not have consented to the treatment if properly informed and that the treatment caused the injury. The midwives presented expert testimony indicating that their care did not cause the stillbirth, and the plaintiffs failed to rebut this with their own expert evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's summary judgment in favor of the midwives. The court held that the plaintiffs did not present admissible evidence to dispute the midwives' expert opinion that the stillbirth was caused by an infection unrelated to the midwives' care. The court also affirmed the superior court's award of enhanced attorney’s fees to the midwives, finding that the plaintiffs engaged in vexatious or bad faith conduct during the litigation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to provide necessary expert testimony on causation was fatal to their claims. View "Goodwin v. Mat-Su Midwifery, Inc." on Justia Law

A woman and a man were married in July 2003 and separated in March 2022. Before their marriage, the woman had an employer-provided deferred compensation plan with a balance between $63,131.23 and $67,536.80. During the marriage, she continued contributing to the plan until 2006. She made significant withdrawals from the account for marital expenses, including $40,000 in 2009 and $75,000 in 2016. In 2018, the remaining funds were transferred to a USAA account and then to a Charles Schwab IRA account in 2020, which was valued at $102,100.55 at the time of trial. The parties disputed whether these funds were marital or nonmarital.The parties engaged in mediation in March 2022 and appeared before the superior court to memorialize their agreement. The court noted that the parties had agreed to allocate the assets and debts of the marriage with one exception related to the disputed account. The woman was to provide additional information to confirm that the marital portion of the account had already been spent. However, the parties had conflicting interpretations of this proviso, leading to further disputes.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that the superior court had erred in its legal conclusions. It ruled that the use of some funds for marital expenditures did not demonstrate an intent to donate the entire account to the marriage. Additionally, the court held that when a mixed account contains both premarital and marital funds, the default rule is "first in, last out," meaning premarital funds are not withdrawn until all marital funds have been exhausted. The court vacated the superior court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the respective separate and marital portions of the account. View "Rush v. Rush" on Justia Law

A man and woman who had been in a long-term domestic partnership ended their relationship and sought a distribution of partnership assets. Each initially disputed whether certain property items were part of the domestic partnership estate or owned separately by one of the parties. After prompting by the court, the parties stipulated to the value of many items and that the man would receive them. However, the stipulation did not clearly address whether those items were included in the partnership estate, and the court did not receive evidence to indicate whether or not the property items belonged to the man or the partnership. The court nonetheless treated the items as partnership property and awarded the items as the parties had agreed, resulting in a substantial equalization payment owed by the man to the woman. The man appeals, asserting that two items of property were his separate property, not property of the partnership.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, initially reviewed the case. The court scheduled a two-day trial, which was later reduced to one day. During the trial, the parties discussed a property spreadsheet listing various items, their values, and proposed distributions. The court asked the man if he had reviewed the spreadsheet and if he agreed with its contents, to which he responded affirmatively. The court then proceeded to review each property item, noting changes on the spreadsheet and confirming agreements on valuations and assignments. The court ultimately concluded that all assets on the spreadsheet were partnership assets and available for distribution, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the man to the woman.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court found that the record did not support the conclusion that the man stipulated that the two disputed items were partnership property. The court noted that the property spreadsheets and the record did not reflect an agreement by the man that the items were part of the partnership estate. The court vacated the Superior Court's property distribution order and remanded for further proceedings to allow the parties to present evidence regarding the proper characterization of the disputed property items. View "Gallagher v. Majors" on Justia Law

A driver, Safet Miftari, was injured in an accident caused by an uninsured motorist while driving his taxi. He filed a claim for coverage under a policy he had for a different vehicle, which was denied by his insurer, Umialik Insurance Co., because the policy excluded uninsured and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for vehicles not insured under the same policy. Miftari then sued the uninsured motorist, who defaulted, and a jury awarded Miftari $1 million in noneconomic damages. Subsequently, Miftari sued Umialik to enforce the judgment.The Superior Court of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, granted Miftari’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Umialik was bound by the prior judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The court also denied Umialik’s motion to prevent Miftari from pursuing economic damages. In a separate order, the court held that the insurance policy’s exclusion of UIM coverage for injuries sustained in any of the policyholder’s vehicles insured under a separate policy was not authorized by Alaska law.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It held that Alaska law does not authorize excluding UIM coverage for a vehicle not insured under the same insurance policy under which UIM coverage is sought. The court also concluded that res judicata prohibits the parties from relitigating noneconomic damages and litigating economic damages against the insurer. The court affirmed the superior court’s orders on summary judgment, binding Umialik to the jury’s damages verdict and precluding Miftari from seeking economic damages. View "Umialik Insurance Co. v. Miftari" on Justia Law

A construction company chartered a barge and obtained insurance through a broker. Upon returning the barge, the owner discovered damage and sued the construction company in federal court. The construction company requested its insurer to defend it, but the insurer refused, citing lack of coverage. After the federal court awarded damages to the barge owner, the construction company sued the insurer and broker in state court, alleging breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and negligence.The Superior Court of Alaska denied the construction company's motion for summary judgment against the broker and insurer. The court granted summary judgment to the broker and insurer, finding that the construction company's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the construction company had not relied on any reassurances from the broker that would have delayed the filing of the lawsuit.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the construction company's claims against the broker were time-barred, as the statute of limitations began to run when the insurer first denied coverage. The court also held that the construction company's claims against the insurer were time-barred, as the statute of limitations began to run when the insurer refused to defend the construction company in the federal lawsuit. The court concluded that the construction company's claims were untimely and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the broker and insurer. View "Swalling Construction Company, Inc. v. Alaska USA Insurance Brokers, LLC" on Justia Law

A man was unable to purchase a firearm because a background check revealed he was subject to a long-term domestic violence protective order (DVPO). He sued the State, claiming he was no longer subject to a protective order as defined by federal statute and sought a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment to have the Department of Public Safety (DPS) notify a national database that he was no longer subject to a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). He filed a motion for summary judgment, which the State opposed, filing a cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court granted the State’s cross-motion, and the man appealed.The superior court found that the DVPO had not expired and remained a qualifying order under Section 922(g)(8). It also concluded that the man’s constitutional claims were not ripe because he had not initiated modification or dissolution of the order. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the State.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the DVPO remained in effect and was a qualifying order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The court found that the legislative history supported the interpretation that DVPOs issued under AS 18.66.100(c)(1) are effective until further order of the court. The court also concluded that the man’s remaining claims were not ripe for adjudication because he had not attempted to dissolve or modify the DVPO. View "Eng v. State" on Justia Law

A plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the State, arguing that the statutory definition of "sustained yield" under AS 16.05.255(k) violates the Alaska Constitution’s sustained yield provision. The plaintiff contended that the legislature lacked the authority to define sustained yield and that the statutory definition contradicted the constitutional provision. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting the court to declare the statute unconstitutional and to enjoin the State from enforcing it.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, reviewed the case. The court denied the State’s motion to dismiss, which was based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, determining that the issues raised were not precluded by prior litigation. The court then granted summary judgment in favor of the State, concluding that the statutory definition of sustained yield in AS 16.05.255(k) complies with the Alaska Constitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case on appeal. The court analyzed the plain meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions, the intent of the framers of the Alaska Constitution, and relevant precedent. The court found that the legislature had the authority to define sustained yield in statute and that the statutory definition was consistent with the broad principle of sustained yield as intended by the framers. The court emphasized that the Constitution allows for legislative discretion in establishing management priorities for natural resources.The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s judgment, holding that AS 16.05.255(k)’s definition of sustained yield does not violate the Alaska Constitution and that the statute has a plainly legitimate sweep. View "West v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Carter K. was scheduled to be released from jail in October 2022 when a mental health professional filed a petition for his hospitalization for evaluation. The superior court granted the petition, and Carter was transported to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API). API staff then filed petitions to commit Carter for 30 days of treatment and to administer medication. Carter waived his presence at the hearings, and his attorney appeared on his behalf. The State presented two witnesses: Carter’s primary provider at API, a nurse practitioner, and a court visitor.The nurse practitioner testified that Carter was diagnosed with schizophrenia and exhibited severe psychotic symptoms, including delusions and disorganized communication. He opined that Carter could not meet his basic needs if discharged. The court visitor corroborated this, noting Carter’s inability to make informed decisions about his treatment. The superior court master recommended Carter’s commitment for 30 days, finding him gravely disabled and unable to function independently. The master also recommended the administration of three medications: olanzapine, lorazepam, and diphenhydramine.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. Carter argued that the superior court erred in finding him gravely disabled and in approving the involuntary administration of medication. The Supreme Court held that the superior court did not plainly err in finding Carter gravely disabled, as the nurse practitioner’s uncontested testimony supported this conclusion. The court also found no less restrictive alternative to commitment was available, as outpatient treatment would not meet Carter’s needs.However, the Supreme Court found plain error in the order for the involuntary administration of lorazepam, as the superior court did not adequately consider the required factors to determine if it was in Carter’s best interests and if no less intrusive treatment was available. The commitment order and the medication order for olanzapine were affirmed, but the order for lorazepam was vacated. View "In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Carter K." on Justia Law

A company that leased space to a government agency lost its bid to renew that lease to another landowner in a different zoning district. The new lessor requested the municipal planning department to approve the government agency’s proposed use of its space, which the planning department determined was appropriate for the property’s zoning designation. The former lessor challenged this determination by appealing to the municipal zoning board, which affirmed the planning department’s decision.The former lessor then appealed the zoning board’s decision to the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District. The superior court, on its own initiative, questioned the former lessor’s standing to appeal. After briefing, the court determined that the former lessor was a “party aggrieved” and therefore had standing. On the merits, the court found the zoning board’s findings insufficient and remanded the case for reconsideration. The new lessor petitioned for review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that the former lessor’s interest as a business competitor was insufficient to show that it was a “person aggrieved” with standing to appeal a zoning decision to the superior court. The court held that a general interest in upholding the zoning plan is not sufficient for aggrievement and that the former lessor’s competitive interest did not meet the statutory requirement of being a “person aggrieved.” Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the former lessor’s appeal for lack of standing. View "Winco Anchorage Investors I, LP v. Huffman Building P, LLC" on Justia Law