Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP,[1] the supreme court held that the ten-year statute of limitations is inapplicable to tort claims that are merely attendant to an underlying claim involving an ownership interest in property.[2] In response to Petro Alaska’s President and majority shareholder personally acquiring a piece of property that was intended to belong to the corporation, the corporation’s shareholders filed a derivative action for fiduciary fraud, fraudulent conveyance, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy against the corporation’s former attorneys.[3] The superior court dismissed the shareholders’ derivative action, finding that the claims were time-barred.[4] On appeal, the shareholders argued that the superior court erred in refusing to apply a ten-year statute of limitations to the conspiracy and fraudulent conveyance claims which were related to the acquisition of the property at issue.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the ten-year statute of limitations did not apply to the civil conspiracy and fraudulent conveyance claims because the claims did not directly involve the determination of a right or claim to or interest in the underlying real property.[6] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court held that the statute’s ten-year limitations period does not apply to tort claims that are merely attendant to an underlying claim involving a property interest.[7]

 



[1] 306 P.3d 1264 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 1272.

[3] Id. at 1267–70.

[4] Id. at 1271.

[5] Id. at 1271–72.

[6] Id. at 1272.

[7] Id.

Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP,[1] the supreme court held that the ten-year statute of limitations is inapplicable to tort claims that are merely attendant to an underlying claim involving an ownership interest in property.[2] In response to Petro Alaska’s President and majority shareholder personally acquiring a piece of property that was intended to belong to the corporation, the corporation’s shareholders filed a derivative action for fiduciary fraud, fraudulent conveyance, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy against the corporation’s former attorneys.[3] The superior court dismissed the shareholders’ derivative action, finding that the claims were time-barred.[4] On appeal, the shareholders argued that the superior court erred in refusing to apply a ten-year statute of limitations to the conspiracy and fraudulent conveyance claims which were related to the acquisition of the property at issue.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the ten-year statute of limitations did not apply to the civil conspiracy and fraudulent conveyance claims because the claims did not directly involve the determination of a right or claim to or interest in the underlying real property.[6] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court held that the statute’s ten-year limitations period does not apply to tort claims that are merely attendant to an underlying claim involving a property interest.[7]

 



[1] 306 P.3d 1264 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 1272.

[3] Id. at 1267–70.

[4] Id. at 1271.

[5] Id. at 1271–72.

[6] Id. at 1272.

[7] Id.