Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kimberly Mendez (formerly Harris), sought an order granting her primary physical custody of her daughter, for a planned move from Alaska to Florida. The superior court awarded primary physical custody instead to the girl’s father, John Governale, who remained in Alaska. Kimberly appealed, contending that the superior court erred by overlooking or minimizing John’s issues with domestic violence and substance abuse, his inability to meet their child’s emotional needs and foster her relationship with Kimberly, and the relative instability in his domestic life. Kimberly argued in the alternative that even if the superior court was correct to award primary physical custody to John, it erred in its allocation of visitation time and expenses. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed on most issues. The Court remanded for reconsideration of the best interests analysis in light of one incident of domestic violence that the superior court erred in analyzing, and for reconsideration of the allocation of visitation expenses. View "Harris v. Governale" on Justia Law

A couple filed for divorce after two years of marriage. The wife requested that the parties be returned "as much as possible into their re-marital financial status." The husband requested that the superior court "equitably divide all marital property." The superior court granted the divorce and divided the marital property based on a determination that the parties asked the court to apply a modified version of "Rose v. Rose." The court then divided the property based partly on "Rose" and part on equitable division. The husband moved for reconsideration, arguing the court ignored his request, and that the resulting distribution was inequitable. The superior court denied the motion without explanation. On appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court’s decision was (1) based on the faulty premise that both parties agreed to a Rose property division and (2) not otherwise supported by necessary factual findings. The case was reversed and remanded for a new property division. View "Pfeil v. Lock" on Justia Law

Tesoro Corporation challenged its income taxes assessed for 1994 through 1998. The state Department of Revenue (DOR) calculated Tesoro’s Alaska income by applying a three-factor apportionment formula to Tesoro’s worldwide income, including that of its non-Alaskan subsidiaries. An administrative law judge ruled Tesoro was a unitary business that could be subject to formula apportionment, and that DOR could permissibly assess penalties against Tesoro. Tesoro appealed to the superior court, which affirmed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Tesoro argued that only the income of its Alaska-based subsidiaries should have been subject to taxation in Alaska because Alaska’s tax scheme violates the Due Process and Interstate Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution. Because Tesoro’s business was unitary, the Supreme Court rejected Tesoro’s challenge to the constitutionality of taxing all of its income under formula apportionment. Because Tesoro lacked standing to challenge the formula’s constitutionality, the Court did not reach the internal consistency issue Tesoro raised. Furthermore, the Court concluded that DOR permissibly imposed penalties on Tesoro. Therefore the Court affirmed the superior court decision that affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision and order. View "Tesoro Corporation v. Alaska Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her child. On appeal, she questioned: (1) the child was a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011; (2) that she failed to remedy the conduct that placed the child in need of aid; (3) the finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (4) that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Because all of the superior court’s rulings were supported by the record, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights. View "Casey K. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area's ("the Park") governing regulations prohibit the use of motorized vehicles off of the Park's paved roads. However, the Park issues special use permits to owners of private property abutting the remote boundary of the Park that grant them the right to use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) along the Butterfly Lake Trail to access their private property. The ATVs have damaged the Butterfly Lake Trail and the surrounding wetlands. SOP, Inc. sued to enjoin the Park from issuing these ATV permits. SOP moved for summary judgment, and the Park filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied SOP?s motion and granted the Park's motion, concluding "there [was] nothing in the statutes or regulations that justifies court intervention and invalidation of the permits." SOP appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the permits created easements because the Park could not revoke the permits at will. The Court therefore found the permits were illegal and accordingly reversed. View "SOP, Inc. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the termination of Sherman B.'s parental rights to his son Kadin M. The Office of Children's Services (OCS) took Kadin into custody shortly after his birth because he and his mother, Amy M., both tested positive for cocaine, and because of concerns about both parents' ability to care for the child. OCS had already been involved with Sherman for several years because of concerns with his other three children. The superior court terminated both Sherman's and Amy's parental rights to Kadin. Sherman appealed, contesting the court's findings that: (1) he abandoned Kadin; (2) that he failed to remedy the conduct that caused Kadin to be a child in need of aid; (3) that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (4) that termination of his parental rights is in Kadin's best interests. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sherman B. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A mother and father of two minor children divorced in 2005. The mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children and the father was ordered to pay child support. The father then joined the Army a year later. Five years later, the mother filed a motion to modify the standing child support award, seeking to increase the father's support obligation due to an increase in his income. The father did not respond to the motion to modify until the superior court informed him that it was prepared to award child support in the amount requested by the mother if the father did not file an opposition. The father then opposed the motion, arguing that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protected him from adverse civil actions because he was actively serving in the United States Army and contended that the mother had not properly served him with notice of the modification proceeding. Furthermore, he argued that the superior court should deduct the Basic Allowance for Housing that the father received as a servicemember from his income calculation. The superior court modified the parties' child support award without holding a hearing, ordering the father to pay increased child support. The father appealed, raising three challenges to the superior court's decision. Upon careful consideration of the father's arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court with respect to the father's challenges. View "Childs v. Childs" on Justia Law

Kyle S. appealed a superior court decision that adjudicated his teenage daughter Jane a child in need of aid. Jane was taken into State custody when she was 15 years old, after she reported being physically abused by her stepmother. The superior court based its decision on Jane's propensity to run away; it made no findings about either Kyle or his wife. At the time of the adjudication hearing, Jane had several criminal charges pending. Kyle challenged the trial court's adjudication decision, arguing that the statutory subsection about runaways was unconstitutional as applied to him and that the court incorrectly concluded that the State made active efforts to prevent the family's breakup. Upon careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded Kyle waived his constitutional argument by not raising it earlier and because the superior court's active-efforts decision was supported by the record. View "Kyle S. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Preceding trial, the superior court suggested the parties could introduce evidence regarding an interim custody order at a subsequent hearing, so that they would have more time to reach a final settlement. During the next hearing, both parties expressed some uncertainty about the purpose of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made findings to support a final custody judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that this procedure violated the mother's right to due process of law. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for a new custody trial. View "Debra P. v. Laurence S." on Justia Law

Chloe O. had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues. OCS took Chloe's fifteen-month-old daughter, Ashanti, into emergency custody because of Chloe's drug abuse, suicide attempts, assaultive behaviors, and affinity for unsafe people and situations. OCS made many unsuccessful attempts to assist Chloe in obtaining treatment for her substance abuse issues and, eventually, for her mental health issues. Following a trial, Chloe's parental rights to Ashanti were terminated. Chloe appealed the trial court's termination order on several grounds, one being that OCS failed to try to reunify Chloe's family. Before briefing was completed the parties agreed that the case should be remanded to allow the trial court to reconsider the active efforts question under the correct evidentiary standard. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that OCS had made active efforts to reunify Chloe's family. Chloe appealed the trial court's finding and ultimately, the court's decision to terminate her parental rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed in all respects. View "Chloe O. v. Alaska" on Justia Law