Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

"Jade" is the biological daughter of Roy and Sheila. Jade is an Indian child as defined in the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Between 1998 and 2007, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) received at least 12 reports of drug abuse and child neglect in the family. Before Jade's birth in September 2004, the couple's older children were transferred to OCS custody for two years. Roy and Sheila attempted to complete drug treatment programs but were unsuccessful. Sheila relapsed while pregnant with Jade; her discharge report from the treatment program indicated she tested positive for cocaine in August 2005 and stopped attending treatment sessions or contacting drug counselors in October 2005. Roy was discharged for positive drug tests and missing treatment. Since being taken into OCS custody in July 2008, Jade has lived in five separate placements. In its termination order, the superior court found that termination of parental rights was in Jade's best interests and that OCS made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. Roy contested three of the superior court's findings: that OCS made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family; that termination was in Jade's best interests; and that good cause existed to deviate from the ICWA placement preferences. Sheila did not appeal the superior court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the record supported the superior court's conclusions with regard to OCS's efforts to keep the family together, and that it was in Jade's best interests to terminate Roy's parental rights. View "Roy S. v. Alaksa" on Justia Law

Petitioner Izaz Khan was indicted on one count of perjury based on four allegedly false statements made in a financial affidavit. At trial, the court instructed the jury, without objection from Petitioner, that they did not need to be unanimous regarding which statements were false. The jury convicted Petitioner. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that even assuming the instruction was erroneous, the error would not rise to the level of plain error. The court of appeals reasoned that any error was not prejudicial because Petitioner had presented a single defense that applied to all four statements. Petitioner filed a petition for hearing, which the Supreme Court granted on the following questions: "(1) whether a unanimous jury verdict is a right under the Alaska Constitution, and (2) if so, the appropriate plain error analysis for reviewing the effect of a contrary jury instruction given without any objection by the defendant." The parties disagreed about the proper plain error analysis for constitutional errors. Last year, in a case decided after the Court granted this petition, it clarified its constitutional plain error analysis in "Adams v. Alaska." Petitioner argued that the Court should depart from "Adam"s to adopt the analysis of the Supreme Court of Hawai'i in "Nichols v. Hawai'i" in analyzing erroneous jury instructions. The State argued that the Court should have departed from "Adams" and adopt the federal plain error standard from the United States Supreme Court's decision in "United States v. Olano." The Alaska Supreme Court declined both parties' invitations to reconsider "Adams," and reaffirmed its decision in that case. Because the court of appeals did not apply the correct standard for constitutional plain error, the Court remanded this case for a determination whether, if the challenged jury instruction was erroneous, reversal was required under the proper plain error analysis. View "Khan v. Alaska" on Justia Law

M.K. is a 34-year-old mentally ill Alaska Native woman who lived in a rural village. In 1999, when M.K. was 22, her father A.K. sexually assaulted her. M.K. reported the crime to police, but soon changed her story and A.K. was not tried at that time. A.K. continued to live with the family for four years until advances in DNA evidence led to his case being reopened, and to A.K. being charged and convicted in 2003 of the sexual assault. M.K.'s mother remained married to A.K., who has since been released from prison and was on probation and prohibited from living with M.K. M.K.'s mother had no plans to divorce A.K., and testified that she is not sure whether A.K. will return to live with the family when his probation ends. The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) petitioned for guardianship of M.K. in July 2008 based on M.K.'s mental illness and her inability to manage her own care. The court visitor completed a report, and a hearing was held over several days, following which the superior court appointed the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) as M.K.'s full guardian. M.K. objected to this decision. The superior court treated her written objection as an implicit motion for reconsideration and denied it. M.K. appealed, arguing that the superior court erred in its application of the guardianship statutes in her case, in its best interest finding that OPA should be appointed in place of M.K.'s mother, and in appointing OPA as a full (as opposed to partial) guardian. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. View "In Re Protective Proceedings of M.K." on Justia Law

A woman died intestate survived by her husband and three adult children from a previous marriage. The husband had acquired a boat for a fishing charter business during his marriage to the decedent, but the boat and charter business were titled in his name alone. Relying on principles of equitable distribution for divorce cases, the estate's personal representative asked the court to include half the value of the boat and a skiff in the estate's property because marital funds had been used to purchase them. The court denied this request, and the estate's assets were distributed according to statute. The children appealed, contending their mother's estate held an undivided interest in the boats and business. Because the superior court correctly decided that the equitable distribution framework for divorce proceedings did not apply in probate proceedings, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Pestrikoff v. Hoff" on Justia Law

A father appealed various procedural actions taken by the superior court in his divorce and custody proceeding. Appearing pro se, he alleged that the court’s expedited procedures violated his due process rights and reflected judicial bias. He also argued that the court abused its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees. Because the court’s procedures did not violate the father’s due process rights and the father has not shown that the court was biased against him, the Supreme Court affirmed the procedural decisions of the superior court. But because the superior court did not follow the established process for the award of attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s attorney’s fees order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Berry v. Berry" on Justia Law

Richard Villars and Kathleen Villars were married in 1984, divorced in 2002. Richard served in the military for most of the marriage, first in the United States Air Force and later in the Alaska Air National Guard. Prior to filing their dissolution, the parties drafted a settlement agreement dividing their property such that each person was to receive half of the marital estate. The value of Richard’s military retirement benefits was not known at the time of dissolution because he had not yet qualified for benefits. However, Richard and Kathleen agreed to split the marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits 50/50 should Richard receive them. Richard began collecting his military retirement benefits in 2009 at the age of 48, twelve years earlier than he and Kathleen had expected at the time of dissolution. Kathleen asserted she was entitled to collect her marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits when Richard began collecting them. Richard disagreed, arguing that the parties intended Kathleen to collect only when Richard turned 60 years old. The superior court determined that the settlement agreement was unambiguous and the parties intended to divide equally the marital portion of Richard’s military retirement benefits when he began receiving them, not when he turned 60. The superior court ordered Richard to repay Kathleen 50% of the marital portion of the retirement benefits he had received to date. Richard appealed, arguing that the superior court’s finding on the parties’ intent was erroneous and that the retirement benefits were his separate property until he reached the age of 60. Richard further argued that the superior court impermissibly modified the settlement agreement. Because the findings of the superior court were not clearly erroneous and the superior court did not make an impermissible modification to the settlement agreement, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Villars v. Villars" on Justia Law

Andrew G. Horwath, Sr. died in 1991. His widow, Marjorie Horwath, later moved to Minnesota to live with their daughter, Mary Jaworski. A Minnesota court entered a conservatorship order for Marjorie, appointing Mary "Conservator of the Person" and Michael Horwath (Andrew and Marjorie's son and Mary's brother) "Conservator of the Estate." Marjorie died in 2001, and Michael died in 2007. Michael served for a time as personal representative of Andrew's estate and applied to do so for Marjorie's estate too, but was not formally appointed. Another Horwath daughter, Sue Streets, became the personal representative for the estates of Andrew, Marjorie, and Michael. In November 2008 Mary presented claims against all three estates, alleging that her then-deceased brother Michael had not always made a court-ordered monthly payment to her for their mother's care and that Michael had not reimbursed her for improvements she made to her house while caring for Marjorie. Mary also claimed Michael had improperly dissipated property and mismanaged both parents' estates. Sue issued a disallowance o f these claims in December 2008, asserting that the claims were unfounded and time-barred under both the non-claim statute and the applicable statutes of limitations. Mary petitioned for an extension of time to initiate proceedings on her disallowed claims. Sue opposed the motion, arguing that no extension could be allowed because all of Mary's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The superior court denied Mary's extension petition on grounds that her claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Mary unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, The court did not respond to the motion for reconsideration, and Mary subsequently appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that although Mary's statement of issues on appeal asserted the superior court erred by denying her requested extension because she "exceeded the period under the statute of limitations," thereby causing a "forfeiture" of her claims, the legal arguments in Mary's opening brief did not address this issue. The issue before the superior court was neither the merits of Mary's claims nor the merits of personal representative Sue 's disallowance of Mary's claims for failure to comply with the non-claim statute. The issue before the court was Mary's requested extension of time to contest Sue's disallowance of Mary's claims. The court denied the extension because the applicable statutes of limitations already had run on all of Mary's claims. Having failed to argue the statute of limitations issues in the superior court or in her opening brief to the Supreme Court, Mary was deemed to have waived these issues. The superior court's decision was therefore affirmed. View "Jaworski v. Estates of Horwath" on Justia Law

An employer petitioned the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board for reimbursement from the Second Injury Fund for payments it made to a disabled worker. The Fund opposed the petition. After a hearing, the Board granted the petition. The Fund asked the Board to reconsider its decision in December 2009. The hearing officer told the parties that he would inform them in writing by the end of January 2010 about what action the Board was taking on the reconsideration request. Instead, in April 2010 the hearing officer sent a prehearing conference summary indicating that the reconsideration request had been denied by operation of statute. The next day the Fund filed a notice of appeal and a motion to accept a late-filed appeal with the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission. The Commission denied the Fund's request to file its appeal late and dismissed the appeal. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the Fund filed a timely appeal, it reversed the Commission's decision and remand for consideration of the Fund's appeal. View "Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development v. Tongass Business Center" on Justia Law

In 2008, Alaska's Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers imposed professional sanctions on appraiser Appellee-Cross-Appellant Kim Wold for violations of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The Board relied in large part on the views of a distinguished expert in Alaskan real estate appraisal who performed a "desk review" of Appelle's work. The expert concluded that the appraiser committed numerous violations of the USPAP. Though the Supreme Court reviewed the Board's findings with great deference, it concluded that none of the Board's findings of USPAP violations were supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The Court thus affirmed the superior court's reversal of the Board's findings of USPAP violations, and reversed the single violation that the superior court affirmed. View "Dept. of Commerce & Economic Development v. Wold" on Justia Law

58-year-old Asian-American Appellant Sue Grundberg alleged that she was discriminated against when her employer, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, denied her a promotion to the position of Engineer II, and instead hired "a younger less qualified" Caucasian man for the position. She filed a complaint with the State Commission for Human Rights, which initiated an administrative investigation of the hiring decision. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Commission issued a written determination that Appellant had failed to produce substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination by the Department. On appeal, the superior court affirmed the agency determination. Because Appellant produced evidence sufficient to create an inference that the Department's alleged reason for not hiring her is a pretext for discrimination, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Grundberg v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights" on Justia Law