Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was the validity and interpretation of a roadway easement granted to meet a borough's subdivision plat-waiver requirements. The borough approved a nearby subdivision project contingent on upgrading the easement roadway. The owners of the servient estate first insisted that the developer maintain his roadway upgrade within the original easement. After the work was completed the owners sued the developer for trespass, alleging implicitly that the original easement grant was invalid because it was not properly executed and acknowledged, and asserting that there might be public prescriptive easement across their property. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the developer on the validity of the easement, holding that any acknowledgment deficiencies were cured. The Supreme Court agreed with the landowners that the superior court misapplied the statute, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment on other grounds. View "Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

The husband in this case was ordered to pay spousal support for an indefinite time period. More than three years later after that order, before a different judge, the wife sought relief for the husband's failure to pay any spousal support. The husband moved motion to set aside the original spousal support award, arguing the judgment was void: (1) for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction at trial; and (2) because he had not received due process. The superior court granted the husband's motion. The wife appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: the Court found that the husband used Rule 60(b)(4) not to attack a void judgment, but as a substitute for a timely appeal. Furthermore, the Court found the husband had adequate notice of the issues to be litigated, was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give testimony. Therefore the Court concluded the trial court granted husband's motion in error. View "Blaufuss v. Ball" on Justia Law

At the heart of this appeal, a custody dispute between Appellant Aaron Rosenblum and Appellee Angelica Perales. The trial court awarded appellee custody, child support and interim attorney's fees. Appellant argued that the court's custody decision was flawed for a lack of the requisite findings, gave disproportionate weight to a single factor, and was based on an improper factor. Furthermore, appellant argued the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the child support order and in the award of attorney's fees. After its review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed decisions on child custody and attorney's fees. The Court remanded the case for clarification on child support. View "Rosenblum v. Perales" on Justia Law

Appellant David McCarter claimed the superior court erred by failing to make statute-mandated findings in his appeal related to the enforcement of a property settlement agreement in his divorce from Appellee Deborah McCarter. Appellant also argued that the superior court erred in failing to vacate certain ambiguous provisions of that agreement or to allow for its modification. Finding no error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCarter v. McCarter" on Justia Law

Appellant Patricia Beals appealed the superior court's property division in her divorce from Appellee Mark Beals. She argued that the court incorrectly characterized a lot that she and Mark jointly purchase with cash obtained from refinancing the marital home as separate property. Mark owned the marital home before the parties married. In addition, Patricia argued the court erroneously valued the mortgage on the marital home at the time of separation rather than at the time of trial. Because the entire value of the jointly titled lot should have been characterized as marital property, and because the home's equity should have been valued as of the time of trial, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Beals v. Beals" on Justia Law

Christopher C. and Therese C.'s parental rights were terminated as to the couple's four children. The trial court relied primarily on evidence that neither parent had acquired the basic skills necessary to parent their children despite more than a year of training by the Department of Health & Social Services' Office of Children's Services. The Supreme Court after its review concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore the Court affirmed the termination of the parties' parental rights. View "Christopher C. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

Yauna Taylor and Calvin Grimmett were both University of Alaska employees terminated through notices of nonretention; Grimmett was alternatively terminated for cause. The Superior Court found that the University violated Taylor's due process rights by nonretaining her without a hearing rather than for cause; the court upheld the nonretention for Grimmett, but set aside his for-cause termination because the University violated the objective prong of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The University appealed Taylor's case; Grimmett appealed his and the University cross-appealed. Upon review of both cases, the Supreme Court concluded that the University indeed violated Taylor's due process rights by using a notice with no hearing. In Grimmett's case, the Court found the University violated his due process rights to terminate his employment without a hearing. The Court reversed the Superior Court's decision to uphold Grimmett's nonretention and reversed the for-cause termination. Both cases were remanded to their respective tribunals for further proceedings on backpay remedies. View "Grimmett v. University of Alaska" on Justia Law

Appellant Tommie Patterson was involved in a motor vehicle accident. His insurance company paid his medical providers to the policy limit. Two years later, Appellant sued the insurance company, arguing it had shown bad faith following the accident. The company moved for summary judgment, which was granted. A month after that decision, Appellant filed a second lawsuit, alleging the company falsely advertised its services, breached his insurance contract, embezzled money from him, falsified documents and threatened to make him at fault for the accident. The company moved for summary judgment again, which was granted. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that because Appellant's embezzlement claim in the second lawsuit alleged a different cause of action than in the first, the trial court improperly granted summary judgment with regards to that claim. All other claims were barred by res judicata. Therefore the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "Patterson v. Infinity Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Office of Children's Services (OCS) placed a Native child in a non-Native foster home while working with the other towards reunification. Over two years later, the superior court terminated the parents' parental rights. The child's maternal grandmother and the tribe sought to enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) placement preferences. The foster parents petitioned for adoption. The superior court found good cause to deviate from the ICWA preference, and that the grandmother was not a suitable placement for the child. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the tribe argued the superior court erred by applying the wrong standard of proof for the good cause determination; that the court's findings were not supported by sufficient evidence; and that the findings were not sufficient to support the good cause determination. The Supreme Court found that the ICWA implicitly mandated that good cause to deviate from ICWA's adoptive placement preferences be proved by clear and convincing evidence. To the extent prior cases held otherwise, they were overruled. Therefore the superior court was vacated here and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Native Village of Tununak v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Five years after divorcing, the parties in this case sought to modify their divorce decree. The Superior Court found that circumstances had not changed sufficiently for either to justify modification of the child custody agreement, but the court did allow changes in visitation, child support, life insurance and attorney's fees. The father appealed those changes. Because the child support modification was erroneously calculated, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Superior Court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The lower court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Martin v. Martin" on Justia Law