In re Petition for Approval of a Minor Settlement T.V.,[1] the supreme court held that in settlement proceedings, the superior court does not have jurisdiction over non-parties.[2] In 2012, T.V., a minor, was left paralyzed when he was hit by a car.[3] The superior court approved a petition which placed the proceeds of the insurance settlements into a special needs trust for the benefit of T.V.[4] Although the proceeds were correctly deposited in the Arc of Anchorage’s pooled trust, the father of T.V., Jack, became displeased with the care and management of the settlement money.[5] Jack filed a motion in the probate case asking for the Arc of Anchorage to return all the funds.[6] The court denied Jack’s motion concluding the Arc of Anchorage was not a party in the minor’s settlement cases.[7] On appeal, the supreme court considered whether the superior court was correct in denying Jack’s motion.[8] The court noted that Jack’s motion was an attempt to state a claim against the Arc of Anchorage and his requested relief was for the Arc to give back the settlement money even though the Arc was never a party in the probate case.[9] The supreme court determined that because the Arc of Anchorage was not a party in the minor’s probate case, the superior court did not have jurisdiction over the Arc of Anchorage and correctly denied the motion.[10] Affirming the lower court, the supreme court held in settlement proceedings, the superior court does not have jurisdiction over non-parties.[11]
[1] 371 P.3d 599 (Alaska 2016).
[2] Id. at 602.
[3] Id. at 599.
[4] Id. at 600.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 601.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 602.
[11] Id.