Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Sidney Hertz, a prisoner sentenced in 1984, applied for an early furlough release in 2009 but refused to agree to comply with any furlough release conditions, arguing that imposing conditions that were not part of his sentence violated his due process rights and constituted double jeopardy. The Department of Corrections (DOC) denied the early furlough release, but he was released on mandatory parole shortly thereafter. Appellant subsequently sued two DOC probation officers, alleging they lacked authority to impose furlough release conditions and that doing so violated his constitutional rights. The superior court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, appellant challenged the superior court’s dismissal and attempts to collaterally attack conditions of his mandatory parole. "Because DOC probation officers are mandated by statute and administrative regulation to impose appropriate conditions on furlough releases without regard to conditions set in an original sentence, and because these mandates alone do not violate a prisoner’s rights under the Alaska or United States Constitutions, [the Supreme Court] affirm[ed] the superior court’s dismissal of this case." View "Hertz v. Macomber" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a deed that was absolute on its face should have been reformed into a security agreement. Appellant Kelly Griffin owned property near Wasilla. Beginning in 2005, Appellee Michael Weber paid Griffin rent for use of a cabin on the property. One of Griffin's business creditors sued her for unpaid debts; Griffin also owed Weber for a series of small loans he made to her over the years. Griffin planned to refinance her property in order to pay off her debts, but when it became apparent she could not personally qualify for refinancing, she asked Weber to cosign the refinancing note. The refinancing bank conditioned its loan on the property being titled to both Griffin and Weber. Weber granted Griffin a power of attorney concerning the property thinking it might be useful expediting the refinancing. However, the bank opted not to refinance the property. The parties turned to a credit union who agreed to make the loan. Griffin subsequently signed a quitclaim deed of her property, granting it to both herself and Weber. Griffin used the proceeds of the loan to pay an existing loan on the property, her business debt and the debt she owed to Weber. In July 2010 Griffin sought to again refinance the property, this time with her fiancee, Ed Grube. The credit union approved, conditioned on Weber relinquishing his interest in the property. When Weber refused, Griffin signed a quitclaim deed conveying Weber’s interest to herself. The deed and an attachment to it indicated that Griffin was signing Weber’s name under the power of attorney granted in January 2009. The credit union refused to proceed with the new refinancing based on this deed. Weber filed a complaint against Griffin, claiming that Griffin’s act of signing the quitclaim deed under the January 2009 power of attorney was fraudulent, a breach of Griffin’s fiduciary duty and her duty of good faith and fair dealing, and a conversion. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, a declaration that the deed signed by Griffin was void, and partition of the property as a one-half owner. The superior court found that Griffin breached her fiduciary duty to Weber by using the power of attorney to sign the quitclaim deed of July 2010 for Weber and ruled that the deed was invalid. The court also found that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the parties intended the 2009 deed to be a security device rather than a conveyance under which they would equally share a one-half interest in the property. Griffin appealed, primarily arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to reform the deed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that reformation should have been granted because both parties to the transaction testified at trial that the deed was executed for security purposes. View "Griffin v. Weber" on Justia Law

A jury found Ronald Brooks liable to his former brother-in-law, Timothy Hollaar, for the full amount of loans that had been memorialized by four promissory notes. On appeal, Ronald argued: (1) that the trial court erred in allowing Timothy to recover more than nominal damages, since Timothy was not the real source of the money and intended to pay any recovery to the family members who supplied it; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to make special findings of fact on Timothy’s promissory estoppel claim; and (3) that the trial court erred in naming Timothy the prevailing party. Because Timothy could lawfully sue to recover the loans, the promissory estoppel claim was properly submitted to the jury, and Timothy was the prevailing party, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Brooks v. Hollaar" on Justia Law

John Doe A and John Doe B were convicted of criminal offenses that required them to register and comply with Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORA). Following their convictions, the legislature amended ASORA, requiring certain offenders, including both Does, to comply with additional registration requirements. The Does sued, claiming that retroactive application of ASORA’s amendments to them violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Alaska Constitution. The superior court agreed, and the State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the amended ASORA could not be applied retroactively: in 2008, in a two-to-one decision, the Court held that ASORA’s amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and did not apply to persons who committed their crimes before the amendments became effective. Two years later the Court promulgated Alaska Appellate Rule 106, which provided that any issue decided by a two-to-one vote would not have precedential effect. When the Court promulgated Appellate Rule 106 it was silent on the question whether that rule might have retroactive effect. By the Court's opinion in this case, that earlier two-to-one decision is now binding precedent that controlled the outcome of this case because Appellate Rule 106 does not have retroactive application. View "Alaska v. Doe" on Justia Law

Daniel and Luisa Burke owned a home in Anchorage. Nesavou Maka, Fungani Maka, and Alberta Maka were their next-door neighbors. A common driveway approximately 20 feet wide straddled the neighbors' properties. The Burkes wanted to build a fence down the middle of this driveway. However, a preexisting covenant to provide access granted the two lots’ owners reciprocal access to the common driveway. The Burkes filed suit to quiet title, seeking a declaratory judgment that the covenant was invalid and gave the Makas no legal right to use the Burkes’ portion of the driveway. The Makas asserted several affirmative defenses, including laches. Following a bench trial, the superior court found the Burkes used the driveway as shared; the Burkes were aware the Makas believed the driveway to be shared; and the Burkes caused the Makas prejudice by failing to object to the Makas’ visible use between 2004 and 2009. Based on those findings, the superior court ruled that laches barred the Burkes from challenging the covenant’s validity and dismissed the Burkes’ claims with prejudice. The Burkes appealed, arguing that the superior court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Because the superior court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and those facts supported the application of laches, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision. View "Burke v. Maka" on Justia Law

The center of this appeal before the Supreme Court involved a three-way transfer of boat tie-up spaces in a recreational subdivision. Specifically, the issue was whether the court erred in requiring the joinder of one of the people involved in the transfer as an indispensable party. The Court concluded that the court did not err because appropriate relief could not be afforded in the absence of the person in question. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the case was properly dismissed because the plaintiff refused to comply with the court's order requiring joinder. View "Weilbacher v. Ring" on Justia Law

Appellant Mary Hill, the owner of an assisted living home, sought damages from Appellees Linda Giani (an independent care coordinator), the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and Staci Collier (a state licensing specialist) for alleged economic harm caused by a Report of Harm filed by Giani, which resulted in the removal of one of Hill's residents and a subsequent investigation conducted by Collier. The superior court granted summary judgment: to DHSS and Collier on Hill's state law tort claims on the basis of immunity; to Collier on Hill's 42 U.S.C. 1983 due process claim because Hill failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Collier's actions deprived her of a constitutional right; and to Giani on the basis of immunity and common law privilege. Hill appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the court's grants of summary judgment to DHSS and Collier based on statutory immunity and to Collier on Hill's 1983 claim. Because the Court found that Hill raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Giani acted in good faith when she filed her Report of Harm, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Giani and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hill v. Giani" on Justia Law

While receiving workers' compensation benefits for an injury, an employee periodically endorsed benefit checks that included a certification that she had "not worked in any employment or self-employment gainful or otherwise." Her employer obtained surveillance videos of her activities at an herb store owned by her boyfriend and filed a petition with the Workers' Compensation Board alleging that she had fraudulently misrepresented her employment status for the purpose of obtaining benefits. The Board denied the petition, finding credible the employee's testimony that she did not consider her activities to be work that needed to be reported. On appeal, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission concluded that the Board erred in determining that the employee had not "knowingly" misrepresented her work status, but it affirmed the Board's denial of the petition on the alternative ground that the employer had not shown the requisite causal link between the allegedly fraudulent check endorsements and the payment of benefits. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the "knowingly" element of the test for fraud. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed the Commission's decision because, based on the Board's binding credibility determination, the employee's statements were not knowingly false and therefore not fraudulent. View "ARCTEC Services v. Cummings" on Justia Law

A medical service provider filed but failed to serve a complaint against a former patient and her insurer. The superior court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of service. Nearly a year later, the medical service provider filed a second complaint against the same parties. The superior court granted summary judgment dismissing that complaint, ruling that the medical service provider's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that Alaska's savings statute (AS 09.10.240) did not apply because of failure to provide timely notice of the initial complaint. The medical service provider appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that AS 09.10.240 does not require timely notice of the initial complaint. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's order granting summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "American Marine Corporation v. Sholin" on Justia Law

Jason Coday shot and killed Simone Kim with a rifle obtained from Ray Coxe’s gun store. Kim’s Estate brought a wrongful death action against Coxe, alleging that Coxe negligently or illegally provided Coday the rifle. Coxe defended in part by asserting immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Estate argued against applying the PLCAA and alternatively that it was unconstitutional. The superior court ruled that the PLCAA was constitutional and, interpreting and applying the PLCAA’s immunity provisions to the facts of this case, granted summary judgment dismissing the Estate’s claims against Coxe. The Estate appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that the PLCAA was constitutional and its interpretation of the PLCAA, but because it was unclear whether certain evidence before the superior court actually was or should have been considered when granting summary judgment dismissing the Estate’s claims, the Court vacated the summary judgment ruling and remanded the case for further consideration. View "Estate of Simone Young Kim v. Coxe" on Justia Law