Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Thea G. challenged the superior court’s order terminating her parental rights to her two children, twelve-year old Zach, and six-year old Abbie. The superior court terminated Thea’s parental rights based on her unremedied substance abuse issues. Thea raised three issues on appeal: (1) the superior court’s finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made active efforts to prevent the breakup of her family; (2) the finding that if her custody over Zach and Abbie were continued the children would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage; and (3) the finding that termination of her parental rights is in Zach’s and Abbie’s best interests. Because each of these findings was supported by sufficient evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s order terminating Thea’s parental rights to Zach and Abbie. View "Thea G. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

The Alaska Supreme Court issued an order that remanded redistricting cases to the redistricting board to formulate a new plan in compliance with our case law. The Court agreed with the superior court that, in drafting its plan, the board failed to follow the process the Supreme Court mandated in order to ensure that the redistricting plan would be constitutional. Upon remand, the board was instructed to follow a process so that the Court could appropriately judge whether its violations of the Alaska Constitution were absolutely necessary for compliance with federal law. The board then submitted a modified plan to the superior court that changed only four out of forty house districts from the original plan; this amended plan was similarly rejected by the superior court because, among other reasons, the board failed to follow the process that the Supreme Court required in order to ensure compliance with the Alaska Constitution. The board petitioned for review of the superior court's decision. The Court concluded that because the board failed to follow the process that it ordered upon remand, the Court affirmed the superior court's decision and required the board to draft a new plan for the 2014 elections. View "In Re 2011 Redistricting Cases" on Justia Law

Malcolm D. and Mallory D. were married and had three children, Jason, Brooke, and Megan. In August 2009 Malcolm and Mallory filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties agreed to joint legal custody and shared physical custody. In May 2010 Mallory moved to modify custody; she wanted sole legal and primary physical custody of Brooke and Megan, as well as additional visitation with Jason. Mallory asserted a change in circumstances because Brooke reported being singled out among the children for punishment and Malcolm being mean to her. Malcolm opposed, contending there was no change in circumstance to warrant custody modification and that the modification would not be in the best interests of the children. The superior court found that there was a change in circumstance regarding Brooke and Megan but denied Mallory's motion to modify custody for the daughters. Upon its review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that when both parents are found to have a history of domestic violence and neither parent is more likely to perpetrate violence than the other, the superior court has the discretion to determine that the presumption set forth in AS 25.24.150(g) does not apply. Furthermore, the Court Concluded that the superior court did not clearly err when making its factual findings and did not abuse its discretion when it weighed the best interest factors under AS 25.24.150(c) and determined that custody should not be modified. View "Mallory D. v. Malcolm D." on Justia Law

The primary issue in this appeal was whether boroughs have the implied or incidental authority to record a real property lien to secure payment of garbage-collection fees. In 2007 Virgilio and Rosemarie Sabado hired had a fire-damaged house on their property in Kodiak torn down. The contractor opened a commercial garbage account with the Kodiak Island Borough (Borough) and paid a deposit for placement of a construction dumpster near the property. Approximately $5,000 in garbage-service charges accrued. The Borough applied the deposit to this amount and began sending the contractor monthly bills for the balance. No payment was made and the account became delinquent. In October 2008 the Sabados sold the property to Cedric Cutler, who was unaware of the garbage account with the Borough. In December the Borough sent the contractor a letter advising him that a lien could be placed on the property if the account remained unpaid. No payment was made, and in January 2009 the Borough recorded a lien against the property. The Borough then sent lien-notice letters to the contractor and the Sabados, who were still listed as the property owners in the Borough’s tax files. In February 2010 the Borough petitioned to foreclose outstanding tax and garbage-service liens for years 2009 and prior. Cutler learned of the foreclosure proceeding and filed an answer and counterclaim, asserting the lien against his property was invalid and seeking damages for wrongful recording of a nonconsensual common law (NCCL) lien. Cutler appeals the superior court’s summary judgment ruling and default judgment entry with respect to the other garbage-service liens. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that boroughs did not have the authority to record liens to secure payment for garbage collection fees. View "Cutler v. Kodiak Island Borough" on Justia Law

In 2008 Robert Rude, then a sitting Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) director, and three other candidates ran as an independent “New Alliance” slate for positions on the CIRI board of directors. Shortly before the election, CIRI filed suit, claiming that the New Alliance proxy materials contained materially misleading statements. Rude and his co-defendants counterclaimed, alleging that CIRI’s election procedures were unfairly tilted toward the interests of the current board and that the directors had improperly refused to disclose shareholder and corporate information to Rude and the other New Alliance candidates. The superior court granted summary judgment on all claims and counterclaims in favor of CIRI. As a result, the New Alliance proxies were voided, and Rude was not re-elected to the board. Rude appealed the rulings both on CIRI’s claims and his counterclaims. Although Rude’s claims were technically moot, the Supreme Court addressed them insofar as they potentially affected prevailing party status. Because no issue of material fact existed as to the claims at issue and because CIRI is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court. In a separate appeal, Rude challenged four other rulings of the superior court: (1) the award of attorney’s fees to CIRI; (2) denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment; (3) the superior court’s exclusion of exhibits filed with that motion; and (4) dismissal of New Alliance as a party to this suit. Because the superior court did not abuse its discretion in any of these rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court in all respects. View "Rude v. Cook Inlet Region, Inc." on Justia Law

A father challenged a superior court’s decision to terminate his parental rights, arguing that the court’s conclusions were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was not in the best interests of the child, and that the court improperly considered certain facts. Because the record supported the superior court’s decision to terminate the father’s parental rights, and because the superior court properly considered the record as a whole, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sherman B. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services" on Justia Law

Tierice Coleman is the biological father of two minor sons, T.C. and J.C. T.C. was born in January 2000 to Elka McCullough, a woman with whom Coleman had a brief relationship. J.C. was born in March 2000 to Laura Bianchi, a woman with whom Coleman had a long-term relationship at the time of J.C.'s birth and with whom he was cohabitating at the time of trial. McCullough petitioned for child support with respect to T.C. Coleman did not contest that he owed support, but he argued that he should be allowed a deduction under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 90.3(a)(1)(D) because he was currently living with J.C., the child of his relationship with Bianchi, and his relationship with Bianchi commenced prior to his relationship with McCulluogh. McCullough argued that because J.C. was born after T.C., Coleman should not be allowed the deduction. The superior court concluded that Coleman was not entitled to a deduction. Coleman appealed the superior court's ruling to the Supreme Court who affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Coleman v. McCullough" on Justia Law

A bar served a man alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated, and the man murdered a woman later that evening. The lawyer representing the bar in the subsequent dram shop action did not attempt to add the murderer as a party for apportionment of fault. Following entry of a large judgment against the bar, the bar brought a legal malpractice suit against its attorney. The attorney moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that where case law is unsettled, as a matter of law an attorney cannot be held liable for an error in judgment. The superior court granted the motion and the bar appealed. "Because the existence of unsettled law does not excuse an attorney from fulfilling a duty of care," the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "L.D.G., Inc. v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the court concerned whether monetary damages are available to a prisoner for violations of the terms of a judicial decree approving the "Cleary Final Settlement Agreement." In 2004 appellee Corrections Corporation of America contracted with the State to house Alaska inmates at Corrections Corporation's Red Rock Correctional Center in Arizona. Byran Perotti was an Alaska inmate at Red Rock. He filed a complaint against Corrections Corporation alleging that Corrections Corporation violated provisions of its contract with the State, as well as various State Department of Corrections policies. He asserted standing as a third-party beneficiary to the contract between the State and Corrections Corporation. He based his argument on his status as a Cleary class member and the provisions of the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement, which settled the class action involving various inmate claims against the State of Alaska, Department of Corrections (DOC). Perotti's complaint sought liquidated damages under the DOC-Corrections Corporation contract, as well as compensatory damages, nominal damages, and punitive damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement did not contemplate the award of monetary damages to enforce its provisions. Therefore the Court affirmed the superior court's decision granting Corrections Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Perotti's claims. View "Perotti v. Corrections Corporation of America" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her young son. The mother had a long history of substance abuse and relinquished parental rights to her older daughter in 2008 because she was unable to care for her. During the 18 months following the child’s removal, the mother continued to abuse drugs until she was incarcerated. At that point, she entered an intensive residential substance abuse program at the prison, which she successfully completed two weeks prior to the termination trial. In appealing the superior court’s order terminating her parental rights, the mother argued to the Supreme Court that the court erroneously: (1) denied her motion to continue the termination proceedings; (2) determined that termination was in the best interests of the child; and (3) failed to consider legal guardianship as an alternative to termination. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "Hannah B. v. Alaska" on Justia Law