Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Eleanor Oakes owned a 7/8 undivided interest in a 20-acre parcel of land in Council, while Respondents David and Sine Holly owned a 1/8 undivided interest in the property. The parties went to court to partition the property, and each agreed to submit up to three partition proposals for the court’s selection after it heard evidence about the choices. The superior court selected one of Petitioner's proposals, and she hired a surveyor to implement the division of the property. The survey revealed a significant error in the map presented to the superior court of the selected proposal. The error resulted in the Hollys acquiring more river frontage than Petitioner had intended in her proposal which was selected by the superior court. Petitioner moved to amend the proposal, but the Hollys urged that the selected proposal be implemented as surveyed. The superior court concluded that under the doctrine of mutual mistake, Petitioner bore the risk of the drafting mistake in her proposals, and it enforced the proposal with the drafting error. But because the error in the property description did not occur in the formation of contract, the Supreme Court in its review concluded that the doctrine of mutual mistake was inapplicable. "Instead, the error occurred during the evidentiary hearing and formed a mistaken factual premise for the trial court's decision." The Court therefore remanded the case back to the superior court to determine whether it was appropriate to grant relief for mistake, and if so, to repartition the property in compliance with state law. View "Oates v. Holly" on Justia Law

In 2001, Bill Kiernan owned American Towing & Recovery (Kiernan) and Willie Creech owned Vulcan Towing & Recovery (Creech). That year Kiernan and Creech decided to share a lot for their towing businesses. They agreed to split all costs associated with the lot evenly. The parties did not put their agreement in writing. While Creech asserted that under the oral agreement, Kiernan was merely a lessee with a conditional option to purchase a 50% interest, Kiernan testified in a sworn deposition that in exchange for paying half of the costs, he was to receive a 50% ownership in the lot. The relationship between the parties eventually broke down. In 2007 Kiernan became aware that Creech had taken out a second mortgage on the property without telling him, and Kiernan sued Creech. The issue on appeal involved whether their oral agreement provided that they would co-own the property, or that the Kiernan party would lease from the Creech. Creech moved for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of frauds barred any oral co-ownership agreement between the parties. The superior court granted the motion. Kiernan appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment because the substance of the oral agreement was a disputed fact material to resolving whether an exception to the statute of frauds applied. View "Kiernan v. Creech" on Justia Law

Appellant Jacob Ennen was seriously injured while he was a passenger in Gordon Shanigan's car. Shanigan's insurer, Integon Indemnity Corporation (Integon), paid $50,000 to cover Shanigan's possible liability to Appellant. Under Alaska insurance statutes, Appellant would also likely have been entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under Shanigan's policy. However, Integon's policy was inconsistent with these statutes, and Integon told Ennen that he was not entitled to any additional money. Six years later, some time after Integon learned that its underinsured motorist provision violated Alaska insurance statutes, Integon paid Appellant underinsured motorist benefits plus interest and fees. Appellant sued Integon for bad faith. Integon filed a third-party complaint against Appellant's attorney, Craig Allen. Before trial, the superior court dismissed Integon’s claims against Allen on the ground that allowing Integon to implead Appellant's attorney would violate public policy. The superior court held that because Appellant did not own the insurance policy, Integon did not owe him a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the superior court concluded that Appellant had no cause of action for bad faith. But, in the event this ruling were to be reversed on appeal, the superior court made an alternate finding that while Integon had committed the tort of bad faith, Appellant had suffered no damages as a result. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed on both counts. "The superior court was justifiably cautious about extending the bad faith cause of action to a new class of plaintiffs, but we conclude that Ennen, as an insured, is eligible under our existing case law to bring a cause of action for bad faith." The Court concluded that Appellant established facts that would entitle him to damages. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Integon's third-party claim against Allen on the alternative ground that Allen was not a proximate cause of Appellant's harm. View "Ennen v. Integon Indemnity Corp." on Justia Law

David S. appealed the termination of his parental rights to his daughter Hannah, who is an Indian child. Hannah was taken into the custody by the Office of Children's Services (OCS) while David was incarcerated. David remained in jail for the first 20 months of Hannah's life. David was released from prison and was on parole for five months, during which time he had regular visits with Hannah. David then became a fugitive for nine months, before being recaptured and reincarcerated. While David was a fugitive, OCS petitioned for termination of his parental rights, and two months after David was returned to prison, the superior court held a termination trial. The superior court found that Hannah was a child in need of aid due to David’s abandonment, incarceration, and substance abuse. The superior court also concluded that OCS had engaged in active efforts to help David's rehabilitation, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act, and that it was in Hannah's best interests for David's parental rights to be terminated. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's ruling because OCS established all requirements necessary for termination. View "David S. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Svcs" on Justia Law

In 2007, Plaintiff Helen Barton was injured while watching a high school football game in Barrow when a player ran out of bounds during a play and collided with her, breaking her leg. Plaintiff sued the North Slope Borough School District, alleging in part that the football field had not been designed or built with a proper "run-off" area along the sidelines and that spectators had improperly been allowed to stand in the run-off area during the game. Plaintiff retained expert landscape architect Juliet Vong who proposed to testify that she used a particular manual in designing sports fields "to help ensure the appropriate dimensions and design criteria are met for a given sport and level of play." The School District filed a motion in limine to exclude Vong's testimony because it did not provide an admissible expert opinion. The superior court agreed with the District and excluded Vong's report and testimony. At a jury trial in August 2010, the District was found not negligent. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the superior court should not have excluded Vong's testimony and that doing so was prejudicial to Plaintiff's case. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that although it was error to exclude Vong’s testimony, the error was harmless. View "Barton v. North Slope Borough School District" on Justia Law

Six tribal councils, joined by two other associations, filed an action against the State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the superior court seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2005 Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP, the Plan) was unlawful. DNR’s motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) was denied and the superior court held that: (1) the BBAP is a regulation that must be promulgated under the Alaska Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and (2) Alaska Appellate Rule 602(a)(2) does not bar the Tribes’ claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellate Rule 602(a)(2) did not bar the Tribe's claims and the that BBAP is not a regulation. View "Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources v. Nondalton Tribal Council" on Justia Law

John Weinberger and Patrice Weinmeister are the parents of a young son. After an incident of mutual domestic violence, John obtained an ex parte restraining order against Patrice. John and Patrice both sought custody of their son in the separate custody proceeding that followed. After a one-day bench trial, the superior court determined that Patrice had a "history of perpetrating domestic violence," but the court also ruled that Patrice rebutted the presumption against awarding custody to her. John appealed the custody decision. John contended that the superior court's determination that Patrice overcame the presumption was based on a misreading of AS 25.24.150(h). John argued that the superior court read this statute with "or" between the conditions for rebutting the presumption rather than "and." In other words, rather than reading the statute to require consideration of an intervention program, and a showing that Patrice does not engage in substance abuse, and a showing that the child’s best interests would be served by awarding custody to her, John argued that the superior court interpreted the statute to allow the presumption to be overcome if Patrice made any one of the three showings identified in the statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with John. Because Patrice failed to rebut the statutory presumption, the superior court erred by awarding custody to Patrice and the custody order was reversed. View "Weinberger v. Weinmeister" on Justia Law

Stephanie F. and George C. both sought physical and legal custody of their son and daughter. Following lengthy proceedings, the superior court found that it would be in the children's best interests for custody to be awarded to George. But the court also found that George committed two acts of violence against Stephanie in the months leading up to their separation. The acts were described by the court as "situational violence" not reflective of a chronic pattern, but still a history of violence under AS 25.24.150(g). As a result, a statutory presumption against awarding custody to George was triggered. The superior court concluded that George did not rebut the presumption because he did not complete a batterers' intervention program. Assuming (without deciding) that the perceived conflict between the statutory presumption and the children's best interests likely violated the children's and George's right to due process, the superior court avoided the presumed constitutional question by articulating an alternate standard for overcoming the statutory presumption. Stephanie appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the completion of a batterers' intervention program is not the only way to rebut the presumption in AS 25.24.150(g), and because the statute does not prevent the superior court from conducting a complete best interests analysis, the statute did not raise due process concerns. The superior court did not abuse its discretion or make clearly erroneous findings of fact when it ruled that it was in the children's best interests to be with George, but it did not consider whether the steps George took to address his history of domestic violence rebutted the presumption in AS 25.24.150(g). Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for consideration of that issue. View "Stephanie F. v. George C." on Justia Law

There was one issue for the Supreme Court's resolution in this, the fifth appeal in this case. After the last remand, the superior court entered a judgment awarding the class a principal refund of $12.4 million with prejudgment interest exceeding $62 million. The question presented on appeal was whether one of the Court's previous decisions in this case, "Carlson III," incorrectly decided that the rate of prejudgment interest for unconstitutional commercial fishing license and limited entry permit fee overpayments was the statutorily imposed punitive interest rate for underpaid and overpaid taxes under Title 43 of the Alaska Statutes. Because the statute establishing prejudgment interest for underpayment and overpayment of taxes did not apply to the refund of overpayment of the commercial fishing fees involved in this case, and because the Court's earlier incorrect holding on this issue resulted in a manifest injustice, the Court concluded that its earlier decision on this issue must be overruled. Accordingly, the Court remanded this case for a new prejudgment interest calculation. View "Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. Carlson" on Justia Law

Thirty seven years ago, two business partners bought a 160-acre property bordering the Kenai River which they subdivided into 114 lots (Holiday Park Subdivision). The partners reserved an easement across Lot 30 for the benefit of all Holiday Park owners, but disagreements arose over the permissible uses and geographic boundaries of the easement. In 2004, the owner of Lot 30 sold it to Kenai River Airpark, LLC. One of the developers of Holiday Park sued Kenai River Airpark and the Airpark Owners Association to prevent their use of Lot 30. The superior court ruled that members of the Airpark Owners Association could use Lot 30 as long as they did not interfere with Holiday Park owners’ use of the easement. The superior court also ruled that the easement’s scope was limited to a defined path shown on the Holiday Park plat, but that permissible uses of the easement included boat launching, bank fishing, and river access. The Holiday Park developer appealed. Because Holiday Park’s plat unambiguously described the easement’s scope as “30' BOAT LAUNCH ESM’T,” the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s ruling permitting more expansive use. However, the Court affirmed the superior court’s order regarding the geographic bounds of the easement; the original developer did not establish an expanded easement by prescription, implication, inquiry notice, or estoppel. View "HP Limited Partnership v. Kenai River Airpark, LLC" on Justia Law