Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A mother appealed an order that modified her child support obligation. She argued that the court improperly calculated the father's self-employment income and also erred by imputing a 40-hour workweek when calculating her income. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court agreed that the court did not conduct a sufficient review of the father's business expenses, reimbursements, and in-kind contributions to determine his adjusted annual income for child support purposes. And the superior court erred in finding mother was underemployed. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded for recalculation of the child support award. View "Mallory D. v. Malcom D." on Justia Law

A judgment debtor challenged the superior court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside an order permitting the sale of an airplane seized to execute on the judgment against him. At the time of seizure, the airplane was in the process of being reconstructed and did not have certain identifying information attached to it. Third parties claimed an interest in the seized airplane. After an evidentiary hearing the superior court determined that the judgment debtor had an interest in the airplane and permitted its sale. But at that point the underlying judgment was paid by one of the third parties, and the execution sale did not occur. The judgment debtor, joined by the third parties, filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the order regarding ownership of the airplane. The superior court denied the Rule 60(b) motion and awarded attorney's fees to the judgment creditor and against the judgment debtor and the third-party claimants. Finding no error in the trial court's denial of the motion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schweitzer v. Salamatof Air Park Subdivision Owners, Inc." on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute initially lived together in Alaska, but when relationship ended before the birth of their daughter, the mother relocated to California. After lengthy litigation, the superior court awarded the father primary custody based on its findings that: (1) the father was more likely to foster a close and continuing relationship between the mother and the child; (2) the stability factor slightly favored the father; and (3) the mother’s flexibility in caring for the child would be slightly limited due to the impending birth of her second child. The mother appealed, arguing that the superior court's findings were clearly erroneous. She also argued that the court erred in its application of the custody statute, in disregarding the custody investigator’s recommendations, and in formulating various aspects of the final custody order. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the custody order, but remanded on the issue of visitation costs to clarify ambiguity in the court’s order. View "Nancy M. v. John M." on Justia Law

Frank Griswold made a public records request for emails related to a public bond proposition. The City of Homer produced all of the emails requested, except for certain privileged emails and deleted emails that could not be recovered without expensive software. Griswold sought to compel the records not produced. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient record support for the superior court to decide that the city manager used "good faith and reasonable effort" to comply with the request. View "Griswold v. Homer City Council" on Justia Law

Garold Charles was in an accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle belonging to Tara and Anthony Stout. He brought negligence claims against the Stouts and Credit Union 1, the lienholder of the Stouts’ vehicle. Credit Union 1 moved for summary judgment. Charles opposed the motion, relying on testimony from Tara’s deposition and contending in part that he was a third-party beneficiary of an alleged contract between Credit Union 1 and the Stouts by which the credit union agreed to provide liability insurance. The superior court struck Tara’s testimony and granted summary judgment to Credit Union 1. Charles appealed. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Charles v. Stout" on Justia Law

Joshua Wilhour moved for modification of child support based on his recent relocation to share custody of his son, and because his income had been reduced. Joshua and his former wife Jacqueline each alleged the other was voluntarily unemployed (or underemployed). The trial court modified child support based on Joshua's income on what he had earned before he moved. Joshua appealed that calculation, and the trial court's denial of his request for a hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing and for reconsideration of the effective date of the modification. View "Wilhour v. Wilhour" on Justia Law

Appellant Hugo Rosales suffered an injury working on a fish-processing vessel. He filed both a workers' compensation claim and a maritime lawsuit. Appellant and the employer ultimately entered into a global settlement of both cases. The state Workers' Compensation Board initially rejected the settlement. Appellant later tried to withdraw from the settlement but changed his mind. At a hearing, he testified that the though the settlement was in his best interests. The Board approved the settlement after the hearing. Several months later, appellant moved to have the agreement set aside. The Board denied this request. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission affirmed the Board's decision. Finding no error in the Commission's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rosales. v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court concerned a contract dispute between Appellant North Pacific Erectors, Inc. and the Alaska Department of Administration. North Pacific and the Department contracted for a renovation and asbestos removal project in a State office building. After work began, North Pacific requested additional payment for the asbestos removal, claiming there was a differing site condition that made the project more labor-intensive than it had expected. The Department denied the differing site condition claim, and North Pacific filed an administrative appeal. A hearing officer recommended that North Pacific was entitled to additional compensation. But the hearing officer's recommendation was rejected, and a final agency decision was issued denying North Pacific's claim for additional compensation. North Pacific challenged the agency decision in superior court, arguing that the agency decision was procedurally flawed and incorrectly resolved the contract issues. The superior court affirmed the agency decision. North Pacific appealed. The Supreme Court concluded that even if North Pacific could prevail on its differing site condition claim or its procedural claims, its failure to comply with express provisions of the contract would have barred recovery. Therefore, the Court affirmed the superior court's decision affirming the agency decision. View "North Pacific Erectors, Inc v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Four children tested positive at birth for cocaine. After the fourth child was born, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) took custody of the child and placed him with his maternal grandmother. Based on the mother's history of untreated substance abuse, OCS filed a petition for termination of the her parental rights months after the child was born. After trial, the superior court concluded that termination was in the best interests of the child. The mother appealed, arguing that she was not given a reasonable time to remedy her substance abuse issues, that OCS did not exercise reasonable efforts over the short period prior to termination, and that termination eight months after birth was not in her child's best interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court because it properly considered the mother's history with OCS, her conduct after the child's birth, and the best interests of the child. View "Amy M. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Alaskan Crude Corporation applied to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to have a suspended the "Burglin 33-1" well reopened to explore for oil and gas. Arguing that it was highly unlikely that oil from the well would rise to the surface unassisted, Alaskan Crude requested to be exempted from oil discharge response requirements or, in the alternative, to have the requirements reduced. The Commission made successive reductions to the technical flow-rate assessments and the response planning standards that it recommended to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for use in setting Alaskan Crude’s discharge response requirements. The Commission declined, however, to classify the Burglin 33-1 well as a gas facility, which would have exempted Alaskan Crude entirely from such requirements. Alaskan Crude appealed to the superior court, challenging the Commission’s recommended response planning standards and its well classification. The superior court affirmed. Alaskan Crude appealed from the superior court’s decision. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Alaskan Crude Corporation v. Alaska" on Justia Law