Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Linden Fyfe was stopped by police while driving on a stretch of highway designated as a "traffic safety corridor." He was charged and convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. At sentencing the trial court imposed double the statutory minimum fine, relying on AS 28.90.030(a), that doubled “the fine, or maximum fine,” for any violation of a provision of Title 28 in a traffic safety corridor. The court of appeals reversed. It concluded that despite the statute’s plain language, the legislature intended fines to be doubled only for noncriminal traffic offenses. The Supreme Court disagreed with that rationale, not the appellate court's mandate. The Court concluded that the statute applied to both criminal and non-criminal traffic offenses under Title 28. But the court also held that the plain language of the statute precluded its application to minimum fines such as the one at issue here. On that ground the Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision to vacate Fyfe’s fine and remanded for imposition of the statutory minimum fine. View "Alaska v. Fyfe" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit federal Court of Appeals certified two questions of Alaska law to the State Supreme Court. Ingaldson Fitzgerald was an Alaska law firm. Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. (ALPS) was a Montana insurance company and risk-retention group. From April 29, 2007, to April 29, 2008, ALPS insured Ingaldson Fitzgerald. Ingaldson Fitzgerald’s insurance policy with ALPS insured the firm against claims arising from “an act, error or omission in professional services that were or should have been rendered by [Ingaldson Fitzgerald].” The policy expressly excluded from coverage any claims arising from conversion or disputes over fees. The policy also contained a provision providing that Ingaldson Fitzgerald would reimburse ALPS for fees and costs ALPS incurred in defending non-covered claims. In 2008 the bankruptcy trustee for the bankrupt estate of a former client of Ingaldson Fitzgerald, in conjunction with a separate former client of the firm, brought a claim against the firm arising out of Ingaldson Fitzgerald’s actions in disbursing from and withdrawing fees and costs against a retainer. The former client and the trustee sought recovery of that retainer, and asserted claims against Ingaldson Fitzgerald for, among other things, restitution, disgorgement, and conversion. The Ninth Circuit asked: (1) whether Alaska law prohibited enforcement of a policy provision entitling an insurer to reimbursement of fees and costs incurred by the insurer defending claims under a reservation of rights, where (a) the insurer explicitly reserved the right to seek such reimbursement in its offer to tender a defense provided by independent counsel, (b) the insured accepted the defense subject to the reservation of rights, and (c) the claims were later determined to be excluded from coverage under the policy; and (2) if yes, then did Alaska law prohibit enforcement of a policy provision entitling an insurer to reimbursement of fees and costs incurred by the insurer defending claims under a reservation of rights, where (a) the insurer explicitly reserved the right to seek such reimbursement in its offer to tender a defense provided by independent counsel, (b) the insured accepted the defense subject to the reservation of rights, and (c) it is later determined that the duty to defend never arose under the policy because there was no possibility of coverage? The Alaska Supreme Court answered both certified questions “yes.” View "Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C." on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of August 29, 2013, Palmer police officer James Gipson noticed Moira M. walking alone along the road. After Moira declined Gipson’s offer of a ride, Gipson continued driving until he noticed a car parked in a gravel lot. Gipson approached the car, discovered it was unlocked, and found an unattended infant in the back seat. While Gipson was waiting for backup assistance, Moira entered the lot and identified the car as belonging to her and the infant as her child. Gipson noticed signs of impairment in Moira’s behavior and notified another officer to contact Moira while Gipson remained with the infant. Moira was taken into custody, and while in custody she admitted to using cannabis, asserted that she had used methamphetamine for the first time the night before, and admitted that she had driven with the infant, Abel, after using these drugs. Moira was ultimately charged with endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, driving on a suspended license, driving under the influence, and misconduct involving a controlled substance. After taking Moira into custody, the police released Abel into the custody of Moira's boyfriend Jarvis’s mother. Based on this incident, the police sent OCS a protective services report regarding Abel, and The Office of Children's Services (OCS) immediately began an investigation. Abel was ultimately placed in a foster home with a non-relative, and eventually proceedings commenced against Moira to terminate her parental rights. The superior court terminated Moira's rights based on evidence that she failed to remedy her substance abuse and the danger this conduct posed to her child. On appeal Moira argued: (1) the superior court erred when, prior to the termination trial, it denied her request for a visitation review hearing; and (2) at the termination trial, the superior court erroneously reduced OCS's burden to make reasonable reunification efforts after she moved out of state. But the record and Alaska case law supported the superior court’s decisions. The superior court denied the visitation review hearing because OCS responded to the mother’s motion for a hearing by issuing a family contact plan that appeared to fully address her concerns. And the superior court’s analysis of OCS’s efforts properly considered the specific facts of her case. Accordingly the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision to terminate parental rights. View "Moira M. v. Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

T.V., a minor, was struck by a car in 2012. T.V.’s father, Jack Vinson, hired counsel and petitioned the superior court on T.V.’s behalf for approval of insurance settlements related to that accident. Jack advised the court that the funds from the settlements would be placed in a special needs trust administered by the Foundation of the Arc of Anchorage for T.V.’s care. The superior court approved the settlements on the recommendation of a magistrate judge. Slightly more than one year after the approval of the petition, Jack filed a motion requesting that the settlement funds be removed from the trust and returned to him. The magistrate judge overseeing the matter recommended that the superior court deny the motion because the trust was not a party to the minor settlement proceeding, but the court did not rule on the magistrate judge’s recommendation. A second magistrate judge conducted a hearing and made another recommendation to deny Jack’s motion. The superior court approved the denial, and Jack appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Jack’s precise claims were unclear: his underlying motion to the superior court sought to have the Arc provide the settlement money to him with interest. But Jack’s notice of appeal stated that he was appealing the order approving the petition for minor settlement. Thus, the question Jack presented was whether the superior court properly denied his motion. After review, and construing Jack's pro se claims liberally, the Court concluded that the superior court did not err in denying Jack’s motion to remove the settlement funds from the trust and return them to him. Because the gravamen of Jack’s motion was a claim against the Arc of Anchorage and because the Arc of Anchorage was not a party to the minor’s probate case, the superior court did not have jurisdiction over the Arc and correctly denied Jack’s motion. View "In Re T.V." on Justia Law

A mother and father divorced, and the final decree granted them joint physical custody of their two minor children. Three years later, at age 47, the father quit his job, moved from Alaska to retire in Arizona, and withdrew significant funds from his retirement account. The mother moved for a modification of child support based on these changed circumstances. This appeal presented to the Supreme Court the question whether the superior court ordered the proper amount of child support in resolving a motion to modify support. The mother argued that the withdrawn retirement funds should have been included in the father’s income and that he could afford to pay more child support based on his earning potential. The superior court ordered that the withdrawn retirement funds be included in the father’s income for determining child support for a one-year period, effective from the date of the mother’s motion. The father appealed, arguing that he could not be required to pay child support based on his income from the previous year. The mother challenged this contention and continued to argue that the court should have imputed income to the father based on his earning potential. Because the father’s significant increase in income from his retirement account withdrawal justifies a corresponding increase in his child support obligation, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the superior court’s approach of ordering a year’s worth of child support based on this year of increased income was not error. But because the superior court failed to consider the imputed income claim that the mother plainly raised in her motion, the Court remanded for further consideration of that question. View "Mitchell v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After a two-day hearing, the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) dismissed Qwynten Richards from her Ph.D. program for failing to respond to feedback from her professors. An Appeals Committee affirmed Richards’s dismissal from the program because it concluded that there were sufficient negative reviews from her professors to support dismissal, and that she had failed to satisfactorily complete a “remediation” assignment given to her after the faculty found she plagiarized parts of a paper. Richards appealed to the superior court. The superior court affirmed, holding that UAF was reasonable in characterizing her dismissal as academic, that it substantially complied with its procedures, and that Richards received due process. It also awarded UAF 10% of its claimed attorney’s fees. Richards appealed to the Supreme Court. But finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Richards v. University of Alaska" on Justia Law

Maya S. was the three-year-old daughter of Sarah S. and Trevor M. Trevor’s criminal history included a number of assault charges and domestic violence restraining orders involving different victims; he has also struggled with substance abuse.The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took custody of the young girl due to her mother’s neglect and substance abuse. Trevor had been incarcerated at the time, but on his release he made limited efforts to participate in his case plan. OCS filed a petition to terminate his parental rights, asserting that he had abandoned his daughter, and the superior court granted the petition and terminated his rights. Trevor appealed, arguing that he did not abandon his daughter and that if he did, he was not given enough time to remedy the problem. Because the superior court’s findings were not clearly erroneous, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed. View "Trevor M. v. Alaska Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

Federal law required electric utilities to purchase power generated by cogeneration facilities that met certain standards. A facility must be certified that it meets the standards. It may self-certify, by filing a form describing the project and asserting that it believes it meets the standards, or it may request a formal determination that it meets the standards. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska implemented this certification scheme on the state level, but the determination whether a facility qualifies fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The main issue this case presented for the Alaska Supreme Court's review was whether a self-certification constituted a federal determination that a facility meets the standards and whether the Commission must defer to this self-certification. The Court concluded that a self-certification did not constitute a federal determination and that the Commission’s broad discretion to implement the federal scheme meant it had the power to require a developer to formally certify its projects. View "Alpine Energy, LLC v. Matanuska Electric Association" on Justia Law

Brett and Josephine Ambridge defaulted on their home loan. Alaska Trustee, LLC sent the Ambridges a notice of default that failed to state the full amount due as required by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Ambridges filed suit against Alaska Trustee and its owner, Stephen Routh, seeking damages under the FDCPA and the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA), as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The superior court held that both Alaska Trustee and Routh were “debt collectors” subject to liability under the FDCPA, awarded damages under the Act, and awarded injunctive relief under the UTPA. Alaska Trustee and Routh appealed, arguing that neither of them is a debt collector as defined by federal law and that injunctive relief was improperly awarded. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Superior Court's judgment and affirmed. View "Alaska Trustee, LLC v. Ambridge" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from an accident in a parking lot in which a vehicle driven by Ronda Martens struck pedestrian Juan Martinez-Morales as he crossed the lot. A jury found that Martens was not negligent, and the superior court entered final judgment in her favor, awarding her costs and attorney’s fees. Martinez-Morales appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by giving incorrect jury instructions on causation and damages, failing to give a multiple-cause jury instruction, declining to give Martinez-Morales’ proposed jury instructions on the standard of care, and improperly admitting testimony from Martens’s accident reconstruction expert. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Martinez-Morales’s arguments relating to jury instructions on causation and damages were moot and that the superior court did not err in its jury instructions on negligence or in its admission of expert testimony. The Court therefore affirmed the superior court in all respects. View "Martinez-Morales v. Martens" on Justia Law