Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The central issue in this case is whether Duane Sykes has a right to access his property across his neighbors’ lots. Sykes sued neighboring property owners, claiming that he had access rights across their land because of both an express easement and a right of way created by federal law, dating back to when the original owner first obtained the land through federal homestead laws. Sykes also sought damages for a number of alleged torts. Following trial, the superior court found that both the express easement and the federally created right of way existed but found against the easement holder on all his tort claims. The owners of the burdened property appealed the finding of a federally created right of way, and the easement holder cross-appealed the superior court’s dismissal of his damages claims and its rulings on a number of procedural issues. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s finding of a federally created right of way, concluding that the court erred in determining when the land at issue became private land not subject to the federal law. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment in all other respects, including its finding of an express easement. View "Luker v. Sykes" on Justia Law

Clifford Tagaban argued that the City of Pelican's foreclosed upon several parcels of land against which he had a judicial lien without giving him proper notice. In 1998 Tagaban was awarded a judgment against the Kake Tribal Corporation, and the next year he recorded this judgment as a ten-year lien against parcels of property the Corporation owned. Tagaban requested and received lien extensions from the superior court in 2008 and 2009, though he did not record the second lien extension until 2012. The City foreclosed upon the parcels in August 2010. Although the City’s counsel notified Tagaban’s counsel of the foreclosure via email in 2010, eleven months before the redemption period ended, Tagaban filed suit to challenge the City’s lack of formal foreclosure and redemption notice to him as well as the constitutionality of Alaska’s foreclosure and redemption notice statutes. The superior court granted summary judgment to the City on all issues and awarded the City attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed. Because AS 29.45.330 only required foreclosure notice to property owners, and this statute met constitutional due process requirements, Tagaban as a lienholder and not a property owner, was not due foreclosure notice by the City. And because Tagaban did not record the second lien extension until after the redemption period ended, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s conclusion that the City was not required to issue redemption notice to him under AS 29.45.440 because he was not a lienholder of record when notice of the expiration of the redemption period was due. The Court also affirmed the superior court’s award of Rule 68 attorney’s fees but vacated its award under Rule 82. View "Tagaban v. City of Pelican" on Justia Law

Pro se appellant Ray DeVilbiss owned property within a road service area, but did not make use of the roads built and maintained with the road service taxes levied on that property. He argued Alaska law required that his property therefore be excluded from the service area, and that the tax was invalid absent a special benefit to his property. The superior court rejected these claims, and granted the borough that oversaw the service area summary judgment. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court affirmed. Alaska law neither required boroughs and municipalities to exclude properties that do not make use of roads financed by road service taxes nor tied the validity of a tax to each taxpayer’s receipt of a special benefit. View "DeVilbiss v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute over whether the owner of a wood chipper could be held jointly and severally liable, along with two property owners, for damages caused to their property by the chipper's leak of diesel fuel. The chipper's owner had leased it to another person, who abandoned it. The property owners claimed they were only severally liable, if at all, for a portion of the damages and that the chipper's owner was liable for the rest. A jury found that the chipper did not contaminate one of the two properties, but as for the other the jury found its owner jointly and severally liable, along with the chipper's owner. The superior court then equitably allocated damages among the liable property owner, the owner of the chipper, and the chipper's lessee. This allocation left the property owner liable for most of his own loss. property owners appealed the equitable allocation of damages, and an evidentiary ruling and the award of attorney's fees. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court properly construed the governing statutes and the evidence rules and that its award of attorney's fees was not an abuse of discretion. View "Oakly Enterprises, LLC v. NPI, LLC" on Justia Law

Borrower-appellant Maria Duenas-Rendon sued her mortgage lender, Wells Fargo Bank, claiming that its foreclosure on her home violated the terms of their contract. On appeal, she argued that the lender waived its right to foreclose when it continued to accept monthly mortgage payments after recording a notice of default, leading her to believe that it no longer intended to foreclose. The lender responded that it closely followed the contractual procedures for default and acceleration and that its acceptance of payments did not waive its right to foreclose in light of the parties' agreement permitting it to do so once the loan was in default. The superior court granted summary judgment to the lender. On appeal, appellant argued the superior court erred in granting summary judgment and also that it should have addressed an outstanding discovery motion before deciding the case in the lender's favor. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Duenas-Rendon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The bank wanted to foreclose on appellant Gregory Erkins' property. Appellant alleged that he was incapacitated when he entered into the loan contract and attempted to use this defense against a bank that was a subsequent purchaser of the note. In the first appeal of this case, the Alaska Supreme Court held that summary judgment had been improperly granted to the bank, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the superior court granted summary judgment on different grounds, concluding the bank was a holder of the note in due course, and therefore immune from appellant's incapacity defense. The Supreme Court agreed with the superior court this time, and affirmed. View "Erkins v. Alaska Trustee, LLC" on Justia Law

Castle Properties, Inc. held a right of first refusal on approximately 2.4 acres of unimproved land owned by the Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene (Church). The City of Wasilla offered the Church another parcel of approximately 17 acres in exchange for this property. Having learned of the City’s offer, Castle requested a copy of the purchase and sale agreement memorializing the exchange. The Church, apparently unaware of the right of first refusal, denied this request. Castle then informed the Church that it was exercising its right and submitted a cash offer, which the Church rejected. Castle filed suit, and the superior court found that Castle received adequate notice when it obtained the city ordinance approving the City’s offer and that the Church acted reasonably in rejecting Castle Properties’ competing cash offer. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not clearly err in finding that Castle received adequate notice, that Castle exercised its rights by making a competing offer, and that the Church’s response did not violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Castle Properties, Inc. v. Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were the efforts of the Alaska Board of Game to control, by regulation, the movement of bison that stray outside the boundaries of two game ranches on Kodiak Island. The Board had statutory authority to determine when a domestic animal becomes "feral," and thus legally characterized as "game." Pursuant to this grant of authority, however, the Board's regulatory definition of a "feral" domestic animal must be reasonable and consistent with its authorizing statute. The Board amended the first regulation at issue to read: "Under this section, and in accordance with the definition of 'game' [provided in statute,] (which includes feral domestic animals) . . . musk oxen, bison, or reindeer that [are] lawfully owned . . . that [are] not confined or [are] not under positive control [are] feral unless the animal is a free-ranging animal on a state or federal grazing lease." The Board amended a second regulation to authorize the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to announce a public hunt of bison in Unit 8 (which included Kodiak) by emergency order. These amendments effectively confiscated lawfully owned domestic animals, unreasonably transforming them from "domestic" to "game" solely by reference to a property boundary line. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State and held the contested regulations invalid. The Court also vacated the court's award of attorney's fees to the State. View "Ellingston v. Lloyd" on Justia Law

A landowner sued her neighbor for trespass, alleging that the neighbor cleared trees from the landowner’s property without permission. An expert witness hired by the landowner estimated that 562 trees were cleared from about a third of an acre of the property. He calculated that it would cost over $400,000 to restore the property to its former condition. But the neighbor's expert witness testified that the market value of the landowner's property was likely not affected by the removal of trees. After a bench trial in August 2013, the superior court found the neighbor liable for the trees removed from the property before September 27, 2008. The court determined there was insufficient evidence to find the neighbor liable for tree removal occurring after that date or for the burial of timber debris on the property. Although the court acknowledged that the landowner had not proved that the tree cutting reduced the value of her property and found that she had no reason personal for replacing the trees, it nevertheless concluded that “it would be reasonable both aesthetically and legally to award damages that would permit replacement of trees on that first portion of the lot that can be clearly shown to have been scraped clean as of September 27th, 2008.” The court therefore awarded the landowner the cost of replacing 50 trees, $23,500. Because the court found that the neighbor's trespass was not unintentional or involuntary, it awarded treble damages under AS 09.45.730. The neighbor appealed. "Ordinarily, a landowner damaged by a trespass may recover either the loss in property value or reasonable restoration costs. But restoration costs are inappropriate if they are disproportionate to the loss in property value, unless there is a reason personal to the landowner for restoring the land." In this case the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in its estimation and vacated the award. View "Chung v. Park" on Justia Law

Major forest fires swept through areas south of Fairbanks in the summer of 2009 and approached properties owned by appellants (the landowners). Firefighters working under the direction of the State Department of Forestry intentionally set fire to the landowners’ vegetation. The burnouts deprived the advancing wildfires of fuel and saved the structures. But the landowners sued the State, bringing a takings claim under the eminent domain provision of the Alaska Constitution, article I, section 18, and tort claims for negligence and intentional misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of the tort claims because of governmental immunity; it reversed its dismissal of the constitutional claim, remanding it to the superior court for further consideration of whether the specific exercise of the State’s police powers at issue here was justified by the doctrine of necessity. View "Brewer v. Alaska" on Justia Law