Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant James Grace suffered permanent brain injuries when his helmet failed after he braked to avoid hitting a dog and was thrown over the handlebars of his motorcycle. Appellant and his wife, Kathleen, filed personal injury and loss of consortium claims against the helmet retailer and manufacturer. The Graces received disbursements from the receiver of one of the manufacturer's second-tier insurance providers that had filed for bankruptcy and gone into liquidation, and entered a settlement agreement with the third-tier insurance carrier. Appellant and his wife separated at some point after the accident, divorced for a month, and remarried. Except for a partial disbursement of funds that occurred while their final divorce hearing was pending, the Graces were unable to agree upon how the remaining settlement and insurance proceeds should be divided. The Graces' lawyer filed an action for interpleader asking the superior court to determine how to divide the remaining funds. After a one-day trial, the superior court concluded that: (1) based on the "analytic" approach in "Bandow v. Bandow," the portion of the recovery from the receiver for the manufacturer's second-tier insurance carrier that was allocated for past economic loss, past medical loss, and rehabilitation services was marital property and should have been divided equally; and (2) the recovery from the third-tier insurance carrier was the result of a jointly-assigned bad faith insurance claim and belonged to both parties. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's division of the proceeds from the second-tier insurance carrier, but reversed its division of the proceeds from the third-tier insurance carrier. View "Grace v. Peterson" on Justia Law

"Martha" and "William" are the parents of six children. They appealed the superior court’s order adjudicating their two youngest children as children in need of aid and placing the children in the custody of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS). Martha and William argued that the superior court abused its discretion in making various evidentiary rulings and contended that it was clearly erroneous for the superior court to find that the children were in need of aid and that continued custody by the parents would be contrary to the children’s best interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision to adjudicate the children as in need of aid and to keep them in the custody of OCS for a period not to exceed 18 months. View "Martha S. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

"David S." appealed the termination of his parental rights to his daughter Hannah, an Indian child. Hannah was taken into the custody of 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. David appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling because OCS established all requirements necessary for termination. View "David S. v. Alaska Ofc. of Children's Svcs." on Justia Law

Michael and Rebecca Sheffield of Unalaska divorced in 2009. Because Michael planned to move to Virginia in 2010, he sought school-year custody of the couple's two sons. The superior court ruled that the children's best interests supported school-year custody with Michael in Virginia. Rebecca appealed, arguing that the superior court placed too much emphasis on the older son's preference to live in Virginia with his father, especially in relation to the geographical stability that would result if the children remained in Unalaska. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court's consideration of the older child's preference was appropriate and that the superior court adequately considered the other statutory factors. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Sheffield v. Sheffield" on Justia Law

Four children were removed from their parents' care based on domestic abuse in the parents' relationship. The parents later divorced and the mother was able to regain custody, but thereafter she entered into another abusive relationship. Two of her sons physically intervened in one violent confrontation between the mother and her new partner and notified the police of the abuse. The State took the boys and their two younger siblings into temporary custody. Their mother appealed the superior court's finding that all four children were children in need of aid. Because the Supreme Court concluded that continued exposure to domestic violence placed the children at substantial risk of injury, the Court affirmed the superior court’s finding that the mother's extensive history of abusive relationships was likely to result in harm to the children, and that the children were in need of aid under state law. View "Sarah G. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

"Philip J." is the father of seven children who were adjudicated to be children in need of aid. On appeal, he claimed that his right to due process was violated because he was unaware that the State would seek adjudication findings at the conclusion of a hearing that started as a contested probable cause (temporary custody) hearing. He also argued that he was denied due process because he was not allowed to present a closing argument. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Philip was not denied due process because he had notice that the State was seeking adjudication findings, because he had an opportunity to be heard on adjudication, and because he was not denied the opportunity to deliver a closing argument. The Court affirmed the superior court's order adjudicating all of the children as in need of aid. View "Philip J. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Leon Burts filed for divorce in 2009. The superior court valued Leon’s post-retirement military health insurance benefit as a marital asset and allocated it to Leon. Leon appealed, arguing that the benefit was too speculative to be valued and that state courts are preempted from treating this type of federal benefit as a marital asset. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s characterization of this benefit as marital property, but concluded the court’s valuation was erroneous. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the value of the benefit. View "Burts v. Burts" on Justia Law

An Alaskan military couple divorced in 2008. Their agreement for custody of their two children was incorporated into the divorce decree. The following year, the father, who anticipated relocating with the military, sought modification of the custody arrangement. In its order denying modification, the superior court tried to give effect to the parties' custody agreement but did not independently analyze the best interests of the children. Because a substantial change in circumstances occurred, and because a custody decision must be based on an independent best-interests analysis, the Supreme Court remanded this case for the superior court to undertake a full best-interests inquiry. The Court also remanded for the superior court to resolve a dispute concerning payment of a custody investigator. View "Nelson v. Nelson" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the superior court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing for her motion to modify child custody. In October 2009 Kalindi filed a motion seeking to modify "interim" custody and visitation, to establish "final child custody orders," and to determine the rule of law regarding the effect of Shaun’s prior domestic violence on the custody decision. Kalindi sought sole legal and primary physical custody of their children and requested an evidentiary hearing. The superior court denied her motion without a hearing, stating that an August 2008 hearing had resulted in a "final order" and concluding that Kalindi was "barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from attempting to re-litigate legal and factual matters that existed prior to the August 22, 2008 hearing," including "factual issues that were known or should have been known to" her at the hearing. Kalindi appealed the May 2010 order; her primary argument was that the superior court erred by denying her a custody modification hearing to present evidence of Shaun’s history of domestic violence. Because the Kalindi was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in this case, the Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings. View "McAlpine v. Pacarro" on Justia Law

Ronald and Sharon Stevens separated in August 2006, ending a 40-year marriage. In June 2007 they appeared before the superior court for their divorce trial. Before the trial ended, the parties entered into what they thought was a settlement on the property division issues. But the parties could not agree on the exact terms of the settlement, and in August 2008 they returned to the superior court for a second day of trial on the property division issues. The superior court valued the property, equitably divided the estate, and ordered each side to pay his or her own attorney’s fees. Pertinent to this appeal, the trial court valued the parties’ two residences as of the date of the first day of trial. Sharon appealed and Ronald cross-appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court erred in valuing the real property as of the date of the first day of trial when the second and final trial day occurred over a year later. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Stevens v. Stevens" on Justia Law