Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a father left his job with Alaska and moved to Nevada, he left the mother with primary physical custody of their daughter. The mother filed a motion to modify child support. The superior court ordered a modification and imputed income to the father after concluding that the father appeared unmotivated to find employment because he was apparently content to collect unemployment benefits. The superior court also expressed concern that the father had not sufficiently planned for how he would meet his child support obligations in the event that he could not find work in Nevada. The father subsequently found a state job in Nevada that paid substantially less than his imputed income, and he moved to modify and reduce his child support obligation. The superior court denied the father’s request. The father argued on appeal that the superior court abused its discretion in imputing income, erred in the amount that it imputed, and abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not provide a sufficient factual basis for its denial of the father’s motion to modify child support, it vacated the superior court’s order and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Petrilla v. Petrilla" on Justia Law

A taxi driver was cited for driving with a suspended license. She asserted that she was not driving the cab on the night in question. Because she had several other violations her license was revoked. The driver appealed the revocation of her license. An evidentiary hearing was held and the hearing officer recommended that the revocation be upheld. The transportation commission adopted the hearing officer’s proposed decision. The taxi driver appealed to the superior court, arguing that the revocation was in error and that her due process rights were violated. The superior court affirmed the Commission. The taxi driver appealed and used the same arguments on appeal to the Supreme Court. Because the taxi driver’s due process rights were not violated and there was sufficient evidence to revoke her license, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Patrick v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

In 2006, Exxon Mobil Corporation and Exxon Shipping Company settled with two seafood processors, Nautilus Marine Enterprises and Cook Inlet Processing. The parties disputed whether the Settlement Agreement required interest to be compounded annually, or whether the federal District Court was free to award simple or compound interest at its discretion. Exxon filed an action in the Alaska Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment. The superior court found that the parties did not intend that prejudgment interest had to be compounded annually, but rather that they intended to reserve this issue for the District Court to decide. Because the superior court’s interpretation of the Settlement Agreement was not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nautilus Marine Enterprises, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was the validity and interpretation of a roadway easement granted to meet a borough's subdivision plat-waiver requirements. The borough approved a nearby subdivision project contingent on upgrading the easement roadway. The owners of the servient estate first insisted that the developer maintain his roadway upgrade within the original easement. After the work was completed the owners sued the developer for trespass, alleging implicitly that the original easement grant was invalid because it was not properly executed and acknowledged, and asserting that there might be public prescriptive easement across their property. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the developer on the validity of the easement, holding that any acknowledgment deficiencies were cured. The Supreme Court agreed with the landowners that the superior court misapplied the statute, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment on other grounds. View "Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

The husband in this case was ordered to pay spousal support for an indefinite time period. More than three years later after that order, before a different judge, the wife sought relief for the husband's failure to pay any spousal support. The husband moved motion to set aside the original spousal support award, arguing the judgment was void: (1) for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction at trial; and (2) because he had not received due process. The superior court granted the husband's motion. The wife appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: the Court found that the husband used Rule 60(b)(4) not to attack a void judgment, but as a substitute for a timely appeal. Furthermore, the Court found the husband had adequate notice of the issues to be litigated, was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give testimony. Therefore the Court concluded the trial court granted husband's motion in error. View "Blaufuss v. Ball" on Justia Law

At the heart of this appeal, a custody dispute between Appellant Aaron Rosenblum and Appellee Angelica Perales. The trial court awarded appellee custody, child support and interim attorney's fees. Appellant argued that the court's custody decision was flawed for a lack of the requisite findings, gave disproportionate weight to a single factor, and was based on an improper factor. Furthermore, appellant argued the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the child support order and in the award of attorney's fees. After its review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed decisions on child custody and attorney's fees. The Court remanded the case for clarification on child support. View "Rosenblum v. Perales" on Justia Law

Appellant David McCarter claimed the superior court erred by failing to make statute-mandated findings in his appeal related to the enforcement of a property settlement agreement in his divorce from Appellee Deborah McCarter. Appellant also argued that the superior court erred in failing to vacate certain ambiguous provisions of that agreement or to allow for its modification. Finding no error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCarter v. McCarter" on Justia Law

Appellant Patricia Beals appealed the superior court's property division in her divorce from Appellee Mark Beals. She argued that the court incorrectly characterized a lot that she and Mark jointly purchase with cash obtained from refinancing the marital home as separate property. Mark owned the marital home before the parties married. In addition, Patricia argued the court erroneously valued the mortgage on the marital home at the time of separation rather than at the time of trial. Because the entire value of the jointly titled lot should have been characterized as marital property, and because the home's equity should have been valued as of the time of trial, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Beals v. Beals" on Justia Law

Christopher C. and Therese C.'s parental rights were terminated as to the couple's four children. The trial court relied primarily on evidence that neither parent had acquired the basic skills necessary to parent their children despite more than a year of training by the Department of Health & Social Services' Office of Children's Services. The Supreme Court after its review concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore the Court affirmed the termination of the parties' parental rights. View "Christopher C. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

Yauna Taylor and Calvin Grimmett were both University of Alaska employees terminated through notices of nonretention; Grimmett was alternatively terminated for cause. The Superior Court found that the University violated Taylor's due process rights by nonretaining her without a hearing rather than for cause; the court upheld the nonretention for Grimmett, but set aside his for-cause termination because the University violated the objective prong of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The University appealed Taylor's case; Grimmett appealed his and the University cross-appealed. Upon review of both cases, the Supreme Court concluded that the University indeed violated Taylor's due process rights by using a notice with no hearing. In Grimmett's case, the Court found the University violated his due process rights to terminate his employment without a hearing. The Court reversed the Superior Court's decision to uphold Grimmett's nonretention and reversed the for-cause termination. Both cases were remanded to their respective tribunals for further proceedings on backpay remedies. View "Grimmett v. University of Alaska" on Justia Law