Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Harold Hawkins and Rosalind Attatayuk were married until 1981, when they dissolved their marriage. Hawkins was awarded the couple’s home in the dissolution and continued to reside on the property, which was federally owned. In 1993 Attatayuk applied for and received a restricted townsite deed to the land by allegedly fraudulent means. She brought a trespass action against Hawkins, alleging that she had undisputed title to the land. The superior court ruled on summary judgment that Attatayuk’s restricted townsite deed gave her title to the land. Because Alaska state courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate title or right to possession of restricted townsite property, the only issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether the superior court adjudicated title to the land in question. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the superior court did adjudicate title and, as a result, exceeded its jurisdiction. View "Hawkins v. Attatayuk" on Justia Law

The superior court granted Brianna Sandberg’s motion to vacate a divorce settlement agreement, valued and divided the couple’s property, and ordered David Sandberg to pay Brianna’s attorney’s fees. In granting Brianna’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the superior court found that Brianna was mistaken in her belief at the time of the parties’ settlement agreement that the marital home was David’s property. David appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no facts in the trial court record supported the superior court’s finding that Brianna mistakenly believed she held no ownership interest in the couple’s marital home. The Court therefore reversed and remanded this case for the superior court’s reconsideration of Brianna’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion. View "Sandberg v. Sandberg" on Justia Law

Rowan B., Sr. and Risa F. appealed the adjudication of their children as children in need of aid. The adjudication was based on allegations that Rowan had physically and sexually abused their daughter and Risa's daughters from an earlier relationship and that Risa was too mentally ill to care for the children. Risa challenged the finding that her mental illness prevented her from adequately parenting the children. Rowan raised numerous challenges to the trial court’s actions, including arguments about notice and denial of materials during discovery. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in denying Rowan access to materials he sought through discovery without at least conducting an in camera review. The Court retained jurisdiction and remanded the case to the trial court for further limited proceedings. View "Rowan B. v. Alaska, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

A husband and wife divorced in 2011. In their property settlement agreement, the wife would receive 55% of the marital estate and 50% of the marital share of the husband's military pension. The parties then disputed how to properly effectuate the settlement agreement. They submitted competing orders addressing the military pension division, and the superior court accepted the wife’s order. The husband appealed, arguing that: (1) he was denied the opportunity to present evidence; (2) the superior court violated federal law by dividing gross pay, disability pay, and more than 50% of disposable retirement pay; (3) the superior court’s final order awarding survivor benefits did not comply with the parties’ settlement agreement and ignored the parties’ stipulated length of marriage; (4) the superior court erred by awarding the wife additional compensation without explanation; and (5) the superior court incorrectly barred the parties’ children from survivor benefit coverage. Because the superior court ignored the stipulated length of marriage and awarded the wife a survivor benefit exceeding her share of the husband’s military pension, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded on those issues. Otherwise, the Court affirmed the superior court’s decision. View "Glover v. Ranney" on Justia Law

Philip J. has nine children. The superior court terminated his parental rights to eight. Philip appealed two separate termination orders (Case No. S-14810 and Case No. S14994) which were consolidated in this decision. Philip argued that the superior court erred in finding that active efforts were made to keep this Indian family together in both termination orders. He also argued that the superior court erred when it determined that his eighth child was a child in need of aid. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed both orders. View "Phillip J. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Appellant Delbert Urban borrowed against his home in order to build a yacht. He owned the home with his wife Martha. The yacht was destroyed by fire, and the bank foreclosed on the home. After Martha filed for divorce, the parties agreed to divide most of the remaining assets, but disputed the value of certain property they owned out of state. Just before trial, Martha discovered Delbert had hidden assets that he failed to disclose in his pretrial disclosures. The superior court awarded Martha spousal support and attorney’s fees because Delbert's hid assets from the pretrial disclosures. The Delbert appealed the superior court's order. The Supreme Court affirmed the support award and valuation of the out of state land. But the Court reversed and remanded to allow the superior court to reconsider the attorney’s fees award and the classification of the hidden assets. View "Urban v. Urban" on Justia Law

The superior court awarded Kelly Matson sole legal custody and primary physical custody of hers and Kevin Co's two minor children. Co challenged the legal and physical custody awards and the visitation schedule. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court engaged in a comprehensive review of the statutory best-interests factors, made clear and thoughtful findings of fact, and did not abuse its discretion, it affirmed the superior court's decision in all respects. View "Co v. Matson" on Justia Law

Conrad Brown and Tammy Wanner-Brown married in 1992, and divorced in 2011. A major issue of the divorce involved Conrad’s State of Alaska retirement medical benefits. Before the marriage, Conrad had briefly worked for the State at a time when all employees in his position were classified as Tier 1. After he married Tammy, he became re-employed with the State and completely re-earned his retirement benefits. Conrad was still classified by the State as Tier 1 because of his prior employment with the State. The superior court decided Conrad was a Tier 2 employee for purposes of valuing and distributing marital assets because "[t]he Tier 1 eligibility was earned prior to the marriage" and "[t]he marital assets . . . spent to allow the plaintiff to vest with the State of Alaska were no different for a Tier 1 than for a Tier 2." The court awarded Tammy the couple’s two rental properties and all of the marital debt, and ordered her to pay Conrad an equalization payment within a year. The court also ordered Tammy to refinance the two rental properties within one year to remove Conrad’s name from the titles and debt. Tammy appealed, arguing that: (1) Conrad’s retirement classification should have been Tier 1, not Tier 2; (2) the court miscalculated the value of the medical benefits even if they were Tier 2; (3) the court erred by not taking into consideration the cost of selling one of the properties even though the property division had the practical effect of requiring her to sell it; and (4) the court gave her an impossibly short time to refinance the loans on the rental properties. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the superior court erred by valuing Conrad’s retirement medical benefits as Tier 2 instead of Tier 1 and remanded the case back to the trial court to recalculate these benefits and reconsider its property division. The Court declined to reach Tammy’s other points on appeal. View "Wanner-Brown v. Brown" on Justia Law

Irma E. asked the State Office of Children’s Services to place her granddaughters with her, but OCS denied her request. Irma repeatedly asked the superior court to hold a hearing to review OCS's decision, but the superior court denied Irma’s requests for a hearing. Based on AS 47.14.100(m), the Supreme Court concluded that a family member who has been denied placement of a child in OCS’s custody is entitled to a review hearing to contest the OCS placement decision. View "Irma E. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

Cynthia and David Fernandez married in 1979 and had two children. In 1986 the parties divorced but continued to live together until 1997, when David left the home. David returned ifrom 2001 to 2007, when the parties separated a second and final time. In August 2010 David received a letter from the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) advising him that he was required to pay child support in the amount of $450 per month, based on a support order dating from November 1986, when the parties dissolved their marriage. David filed a motion in the superior court requesting relief from the child support order. Cynthia opposed the motion. The parties reached an agreement for Cynthia to pay David $33,000, based on the amount of equity David had contributed to Cynthia’s home when they lived together; Cynthia would attempt to get a second mortgage to fund the settlement, and if she was unable to secure financing, the parties would negotiate a payment plan. Cynthia was not able to obtain a second mortgage and immediately sought to return to "square one." After negotiations with David proved unsuccessful, the court set terms for the settlement, requiring Cynthia to pay David $250 per month, plus her Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) each year, until the amount of $33,000 was paid in full. Cynthia appealed that decision, arguing that the purported settlement agreement became a mere "agreement to negotiate" after she was unable to obtain a second mortgage and that the court lacked authority to set terms and enter a judgment of $33,000 against her. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the lower court's order. View "Fernandez v. Fernandez" on Justia Law