Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case concerned the ownership of James "Jim" and Terrie Gottstein’s former marital home. Jim paid for the property, but Terrie’s name alone was on the deed. The Gottsteins lived in the home for 15 years before moving out; they later separated. Terrie entered into a deal to sell the property to another couple, the Krafts, for significantly less than its appraised value, and Jim objected. One month before closing, Jim recorded a notice of interest under AS 34.15.010, which forbid a spouse from selling "the family home or homestead" without the consent of the other spouse. Neither the Krafts nor Terrie knew about the notice of interest, and the sale went ahead as planned. Following the sale, Jim filed suit against the Krafts, requesting that the superior court recognize his ownership interest in the property. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the Krafts. The superior court concluded that it was not "the family home or homestead," rendering Jim’s notice of interest under AS 34.15.010 ineffectual. Jim appealed, arguing: (1) that the statute protected his interest in the property; (2) that the Krafts had constructive notice of his interest and therefore were not bona fide purchasers; and (3) that Jim has an equitable interest in the property and the superior court was mistaken in not granting his request for an equitable remedy. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the phrase "family home or homestead" in AS 34.15.010 refers to a family’s residence. Because the disputed property was vacant, and the couple had moved to another home at the time of sale, it did not fall under the spousal consent requirement of AS 34.15.010(b). Jim thus did not put the Krafts on notice of any legally valid claim to the property. View "Gottstein v. Kraft" on Justia Law

Bobbie Ann Hunter and Shaun Conwell had two sons before separating. Conwell filed a complaint for custody in 2006 but Hunter did not respond. The superior court granted Conwell sole legal and primary physical custody of the boys in a 2006 default judgment. Nearly two years later Hunter, acting pro se, sought modification of custody. The superior court denied Hunter’s motion without a hearing because it concluded that Hunter’s allegations were insufficient to constitute a substantial change in circumstances. Hunter appealed, and in a 2009 opinion the Supreme Court rejected as time-barred her arguments regarding the initial custody determination, but reversed the superior court’s denial of her motion for modification. The Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Hunter’s allegations of: (1) potential verbal abuse of the boys; (2) a change in Conwell’s employment requiring significant time away from the boys; (3) signs that the boys were developing mental health problems; and (4) Conwell’s interference with court-ordered telephonic visitation. An evidentiary hearing on remand was held and the superior court found that Hunter had not demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of custody. The court noted, however, that Conwell’s continued interference with telephonic visitation would alone amount to a substantial change if not remedied going forward. Hunter moved for reconsideration; her motion was deemed denied after 30 days. Hunter then appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s finding of no substantial change in circumstances. View "Hunter v. Conwell" on Justia Law

A wife left her husband in Ohio and moved with their son to Alaska, where she filed for divorce. The husband filed for divorce in Ohio. The parties agreed Ohio had child custody and property division jurisdiction. The superior court dismissed the wife’s divorce action and the wife appealed, arguing that not granting a divorce was error regardless of the pending Ohio litigation. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant the divorce, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Wilson v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The parents of a developmentally disabled adult woman appealed a superior court's decision to appoint a public guardian, rather than the parents, as the woman's legal guardian. The superior court found that the parents failed to take advantage of resources available for the daughter's development and did not support the daughter's contact with extended family. On appeal, the parents argued that they should have been appointed as guardians and that the appointment of a public guardian, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the parents were unfit to serve as guardians, violated their constitutional right to parent their child. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the public guardian, and because the superior court's action did not violate the parents' substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court in all respects. View "In the Matter of the Protective Proceedings of Tammy J." on Justia Law

Darren McLaren sued his wife Teresa for divorce. The superior court divided the couple's property, intending to award each spouse approximately half of the marital estate. Teresa, who appeared pro se, appealed multiple aspects of the property division. After a thorough review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court correctly resolved all of the issues appealed. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the superior court. View "McLaren v. McLaren" 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

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

The Bethel Superior Court entered an order terminating an incarcerated father's parental rights to three of his five children. The father appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by finding that the State made active efforts to prevent the breakup of his family and finding that it was in the children's best interests for his parental rights to be terminated. Because the superior court's active efforts and best interests findings were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's ruling terminating the father's parental rights. View "Doe v. Alaksa Dept. of Health & Social Svcs." on Justia Law

A mother petitioned the superior court to adopt her biological son. She was never married to the child's father. While the court concluded that the father's consent was not needed, it denied the petition as not being in the child's best interests. Instead, the court granted physical and legal custody to the mother and visitation rights to the father. Because Alaska's adoption statute does not contemplate an adoption under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "In the Matter of the Adoption of Xavier K." on Justia Law