Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Phyllis Williams appealed an order of the superior court that denied four motions to reconsider child support, visitation arrangements, the appointment of a court custody investigator, and a share of her ex-husband Appellee DeJeaux Williams' military retirement pay. Both parties appeared pro se. Upon careful consideration of all of Ms. Williams' arguments, the Supreme Court found that Ms. Williams' motions were either untimely or otherwise lacked merit. The Court dismissed Ms. Williams' appeal and affirmed the lower court's orders on all matters raised on appeal.

Bryan and Leota Bagby divorced in 2008. Mr. Bagby was awarded custody of the coupleâs only child during the school year. Mrs. Bagby was awarded visitation in the summer months and on alternate holidays. Mr. Bagby moved to Arizona after the custody trial. Mrs. Bagby filed a motion to modify the custody order, but the court denied the motion without holding a hearing. The court reasoned that Mr. Bagbyâs move was not a substantial change in circumstances since the original order contemplated long-distance travel for visitation when both parents lived in different cities in Alaska. Mrs. Bagby appealed. The Supreme Court had consistently held that an out-of-state move is a substantial change in circumstances. In this case, the Court reversed the lower courtâs order and remanded the case for a hearing on Mrs. Bagbyâs motion to modify custody.

Appellee Advanced Physical Therapy, Inc. (APT) terminated the employment of Appellant Patricia Hoendermis. She had previously served as the clinicâs practice administrator. APTâs reason for terminating her was that Appellant had difficulty communicating with her co-workers and supervisors. Accordingly, Appellant disagreed with APTâs decision, and sued APT for wrongful termination and for failing to provide her overtime compensation. Appellant maintained that she was not an administrative or executive employee, and was therefore entitled to overtime pay. Furthermore, she alleged APT violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her employment contract. The Superior Court granted APT summary judgment, and Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to APT because it found genuine issues of material fact raised by Appellant on both her overtime compensation and wrongful termination claims. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.