Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 1992, Robert Farmer and his wife, Kathy, bought Wolverine Lodge in Glennallen from Peggy Jo Watson. The purchase price of $365,000 was secured by a deed of trust on the property. Farmer defaulted on the mortgage for the first time in 1996, but he cured before the foreclosure sale occurred. In 2012 Farmer defaulted again. Farmer was almost five months late on the payments, had not paid the real estate taxes or room taxes, and had no insurance on the property. Watson paid all of these expenses herself in order to keep the property up-to-date and insured. She testified that "Farmer promised many times that he would bring the loan current and obtain insurance,” but “[h]e never did." In March 2012 Watson commenced nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. Watson’s attorney recorded a notice of default and a notice of sale, and distributed them to Farmer by mail and personal service. Notice of the nonjudicial foreclosure sale was published in the Alaska Journal of Commerce and posted at various locations in Anchorage. The nonjudicial foreclosure sale was postponed six times. It was initially set for July 25, but Watson postponed it until August 29. On August 28 Farmer filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and Watson again postponed the sale, this time at Farmer’s request, until September 26. Because of the ensuing automatic bankruptcy stay, the sale was postponed until October 31, then until November 28, then again until December 19, and finally until December 27, when the sale actually took place. Watson’s attorney was the only attendee at each of the scheduled sales. Each of these postponements was announced publicly on the sale date, and the trustee signed the notice of postponement every time. Farmer was not otherwise notified of any of the postponements, and, at the time of the actual sale, he alleged that neither "[he], [his] wife, nor [his] bankruptcy attorney knew . . . that a deed of trust foreclosure sale was scheduled for December 27, 2012." Farmer argued that equity required re-notice after each postponement and that the lack of re-notice violated his due process rights. The superior court granted summary judgment to Watson. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: equity does not require re-notice after postponement of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and notice of a postponement by public announcement satisfies due process. View "Farmer v. Alaska USA Title Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

Neighbor and owner of property near the Palmer Municipal Airport brought an inverse condemnation claim against the City of Palmer, arguing that the airport operation diminished his property value. The superior court entered summary judgment for the City of Palmer because the property owner failed to submit any expert testimony regarding damages. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court's decision because Alaska law permits property owners to testify about their opinion of the property's value before and after an alleged taking. View "Briggs v. City of Palmer" on Justia Law

Cody Lee and Stacey Dean (collectively, "Lee") and Barbara Konrad disputed a boundary between their lots in an Anchorage subdivision. Lee insisted that the boundary line was established by a 1992 survey, which Lee later marked with fence posts. Konrad argued that a survey she commissioned after purchasing her lot in 2008 disclosed the true boundary and that encroachment of fill material caused by Lee along the fenceline between the lots was a trespass. The superior court concluded that Konrad’s survey correctly identified the boundary line and that the fill material encroachment was a trespass. The court issued an order requiring Lee to remove the fill material and erect a retaining barrier to prevent future trespass; it declared Konrad the prevailing party and awarded attorney’s fees. The issues this case presented for the Supreme Court's review were: (1) whether the superior court correctly determined the boundary between the lots; (2) whether the court erred by concluding that dirt and gravel encroaching onto Konrad’s property was a trespass; and (3) whether the court’s attorney’s fees award was an abuse of discretion. The Court concluded: (1) that because Lee and Konrad’s predecessors agreed to the boundary established by the 1992 survey, and marked that boundary with fence posts in 1999, the boundary between the lots was established by acquiescence; (2) the superior court correctly found that the fill material encroaching onto Konrad’s property after she purchased her lot was a trespass, but erred by ordering Lee to remove fill material that encroached onto the property before Konrad purchased it because this fill material was not a trespass as to Konrad; and (3) it was an abuse of discretion to order Lee to pay for construction of a retaining wall to prevent future encroachment. The Court vacated the award of attorney’s fees and remanded for redetermination of prevailing-party status and recalculation of attorney’s fees. View "Lee v. Konrad" on Justia Law

Clifton Tweedy leased property from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough since May 1988. The property included a house that was built in 1968 and located less than 18 feet from the lakeshore. When Tweedy assumed the lease, the existing structure was exempt from the Borough’s 75-foot shoreline setback ordinance because it was constructed before any setback requirement existed. Shortly after he took possession of the property, Tweedy added a stairwell on the exterior of the house. In 2010 Tweedy applied with the Borough to purchase the property. Because structures on the property were located less than 75 feet from the shoreline, the sale required an exemption from the Borough’s setback requirement. The Borough Planning Director determined that Tweedy’s addition was unlawful and that the application could not be processed until Tweedy removed it. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Board of Adjustment Appeals affirmed the Planning Director’s decision. Tweedy appealed to the superior court, which also affirmed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court also affirmed. View "Tweedy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Board of Adjustment and Appeals" on Justia Law

In 2009 Elisabeth Bachmeier defaulted on a loan secured by a deed of trust against her home, and a nonjudicial foreclosure was initiated. Bachmeier requested a reinstatement quote in order to halt the foreclosure. Alaska Trustee, the trustee under the deed of trust, replied with a quote which included foreclosure costs that were not attorney's fees or court costs, the only items the foreclosure statute expressly mentions as recoverable in a reinstatement amount. Bachmeier brought suit against Alaska Trustee, Routh Crabtree Olsen (the law firm aiding in the foreclosure), and Richard Ullstrom (an attorney employed by Routh Crabtree Olsen), alleging that the inclusion of the disputed foreclosure costs violated the foreclosure statute and was a deceptive practice in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA). Bachmeier also argued that her deed of trust did not provide that all foreclosure costs could be recovered in the reinstatement amount. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The superior court concluded that the inclusion of the foreclosure costs violated the foreclosure statute and that the UTPA applied to nonjudicial foreclosures. Alaska Trustee appealed. The Supreme Court granted review to determine: (1) the scope of permissible charges to be included in the reinstatement amount given to homeowners facing nonjudicial foreclosure under AS 34.20.070(b); and (2) whether the UTPA applied to nonjudicial deed of trust foreclosures. The Court held that because the beneficiary of a deed of trust has a right to be returned to its status quo ante when the borrower reinstates after a default, Alaska Trustee could include in Bachmeier's reinstatement amount all reasonable costs it incurred pursuing the foreclosure under the foreclosure statute, regardless of whether Bachmeier's deed of trust specifically provided for the inclusion of such costs. Furthermore, the Court held that the UTPA did not apply to nonjudicial deed of trust foreclosures. View "Alaska Trustee, LLC v. Bachmeier" on Justia Law