Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2001, Union Oil Company of California entered into a contract to sell its oil to Tesoro Alaska Company. Under the contract the Tesoro took title at the North Slope, but agreed to use a pipeline company associated with Union to transport oil through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The price per barrel was calculated as the West Coast market price less marine transport and pipeline tariff. The contract made no mention of whether the pipeline tariff was tied to the ultimate destination of the oil. At the time, the interstate and intrastate pipeline tariffs were the same. Tesoro shipped the oil to an in-state refinery and paid the tariff to the pipeline company. Union subtracted the tariff amount from the market price of the oil less marine transport and sent invoices to the buyer. Meanwhile, Tesoro successfully challenged the intrastate tariff as unjust and unreasonable and the pipeline company issued a refund, including 10.5% interest. Union claimed that it was entitled to the tariff refund under the contract. The superior court, on motions for summary judgment, awarded the principal amount of the refund to Union and the interest to Tesoro. Both parties appealed. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court held that the contract's pricing term was a netback price to the Los Angeles market referencing the interstate tariff. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's grant of summary judgment to Union and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Tesoro. View "Tesoro Alaska Company v. Union Oil Company of California" on Justia Law

Olga Villars sued her former husband, Richard Villars, for his failure to pay spousal support in 2010. Following a trial at which both parties appeared, the trial court ruled that the amount Richard owed Olga had to be reduced to account for (1) the smaller size of her household while her daughter was living with Richard, (2) the lower federal poverty level in California, where Olga had moved, (3) the substantial contributions for support Olga received from her second husband, and (4) Olga’s earned income. Olga appealed these rulings. Because the Supreme Court found that the trial court clearly erred in its calculation of the amount of support contributed by Olga’s second husband, the case was remanded for further consideration of that issue. View "Villars v. Villars" on Justia Law

The Nancy Lake State Recreation Area (“Park”) issued 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 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 Superior Court denied SOP’s motion and granted the Park’s motion. SOP appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the permits created easements because the Park could revoke the permits at will. Easements are disposals of property; the Alaska Constitution prohibits the Park from disposing of property that the legislature has set aside as a state park. The Court concluded the permits were illegal and reversed. View "SOP, Inc. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

After a father left his job with Alaska and moved to Nevada, he left the mother with primary physical custody of their daughter. The mother filed a motion to modify child support. The superior court ordered a modification and imputed income to the father after concluding that the father appeared unmotivated to find employment because he was apparently content to collect unemployment benefits. The superior court also expressed concern that the father had not sufficiently planned for how he would meet his child support obligations in the event that he could not find work in Nevada. The father subsequently found a state job in Nevada that paid substantially less than his imputed income, and he moved to modify and reduce his child support obligation. The superior court denied the father’s request. The father argued on appeal that the superior court abused its discretion in imputing income, erred in the amount that it imputed, and abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify his child support obligation. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the superior court did not provide a sufficient factual basis for its denial of the father’s motion to modify child support, it vacated the superior court’s order and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Petrilla v. Petrilla" on Justia Law

A taxi driver was cited for driving with a suspended license. She asserted that she was not driving the cab on the night in question. Because she had several other violations her license was revoked. The driver appealed the revocation of her license. An evidentiary hearing was held and the hearing officer recommended that the revocation be upheld. The transportation commission adopted the hearing officer’s proposed decision. The taxi driver appealed to the superior court, arguing that the revocation was in error and that her due process rights were violated. The superior court affirmed the Commission. The taxi driver appealed and used the same arguments on appeal to the Supreme Court. Because the taxi driver’s due process rights were not violated and there was sufficient evidence to revoke her license, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Patrick v. Municipality of Anchorage" on Justia Law

In 2006, Exxon Mobil Corporation and Exxon Shipping Company settled with two seafood processors, Nautilus Marine Enterprises and Cook Inlet Processing. The parties disputed whether the Settlement Agreement required interest to be compounded annually, or whether the federal District Court was free to award simple or compound interest at its discretion. Exxon filed an action in the Alaska Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment. The superior court found that the parties did not intend that prejudgment interest had to be compounded annually, but rather that they intended to reserve this issue for the District Court to decide. Because the superior court’s interpretation of the Settlement Agreement was not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nautilus Marine Enterprises, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was the validity and interpretation of a roadway easement granted to meet a borough's subdivision plat-waiver requirements. The borough approved a nearby subdivision project contingent on upgrading the easement roadway. The owners of the servient estate first insisted that the developer maintain his roadway upgrade within the original easement. After the work was completed the owners sued the developer for trespass, alleging implicitly that the original easement grant was invalid because it was not properly executed and acknowledged, and asserting that there might be public prescriptive easement across their property. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the developer on the validity of the easement, holding that any acknowledgment deficiencies were cured. The Supreme Court agreed with the landowners that the superior court misapplied the statute, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment on other grounds. View "Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

The husband in this case was ordered to pay spousal support for an indefinite time period. More than three years later after that order, before a different judge, the wife sought relief for the husband's failure to pay any spousal support. The husband moved motion to set aside the original spousal support award, arguing the judgment was void: (1) for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction at trial; and (2) because he had not received due process. The superior court granted the husband's motion. The wife appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: the Court found that the husband used Rule 60(b)(4) not to attack a void judgment, but as a substitute for a timely appeal. Furthermore, the Court found the husband had adequate notice of the issues to be litigated, was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give testimony. Therefore the Court concluded the trial court granted husband's motion in error. View "Blaufuss v. Ball" on Justia Law

At the heart of this appeal, a custody dispute between Appellant Aaron Rosenblum and Appellee Angelica Perales. The trial court awarded appellee custody, child support and interim attorney's fees. Appellant argued that the court's custody decision was flawed for a lack of the requisite findings, gave disproportionate weight to a single factor, and was based on an improper factor. Furthermore, appellant argued the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the child support order and in the award of attorney's fees. After its review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed decisions on child custody and attorney's fees. The Court remanded the case for clarification on child support. View "Rosenblum v. Perales" on Justia Law

Appellant David McCarter claimed the superior court erred by failing to make statute-mandated findings in his appeal related to the enforcement of a property settlement agreement in his divorce from Appellee Deborah McCarter. Appellant also argued that the superior court erred in failing to vacate certain ambiguous provisions of that agreement or to allow for its modification. Finding no error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCarter v. McCarter" on Justia Law