Griffith v. Hemphill

PROPERTY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Rachel Reiss


In Griffith v. Hemphill, 521 P.3d 584 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that tenants’ breach
of contract claim against their landlord was timely filed and thus not barred by the statute of
limitations. (Id. at 588). Starting in 2008, two tenants leased commercial property from a landlord
in order to operate an automotive repair business. (Id. at 586). The lease required the landlord to
reasonably maintain the condition of the property. (Id.). In 2010, when the roof leaked, the landlord
refused to repair the roof or pay for the repair. (Id.). Separately in 2016, the tenants found that
parts of the roof’s drainage system had issues, and again the landlord refused to repair. (Id.). In
2018, when the lease concluded, the tenants held over and remained on the property. (Id.). Soon
after, the landlord commenced eviction proceedings. (Id.). The tenants filed a counterclaim
alleging breach of contract, among other claims. (Id.). The landlord argued that the threeyear
statute of limitations barred the breach of contract claim, since the breach occurred in 2010 and
the tenants’ counterclaim was filed in 2019. (Id. at 588). However, the supreme court explained
that the landlord’s promise in the lease to maintain the property was an ongoing obligation. (Id. at
589). Thus, the 2016 incident constituted a distinct breach and separate cause of action from the
2010 incident. (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that the tenants’ 2019
breach of contract counterclaim against their landlord, arising from the 2016 incident, was timely
filed. (Id.).

Griffith v. Hemphill

PROPERTY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Rachel Reiss


In Griffith v. Hemphill, 521 P.3d 584 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that tenants’ breach
of contract claim against their landlord was timely filed and thus not barred by the statute of
limitations. (Id. at 588). Starting in 2008, two tenants leased commercial property from a landlord
in order to operate an automotive repair business. (Id. at 586). The lease required the landlord to
reasonably maintain the condition of the property. (Id.). In 2010, when the roof leaked, the landlord
refused to repair the roof or pay for the repair. (Id.). Separately in 2016, the tenants found that
parts of the roof’s drainage system had issues, and again the landlord refused to repair. (Id.). In
2018, when the lease concluded, the tenants held over and remained on the property. (Id.). Soon
after, the landlord commenced eviction proceedings. (Id.). The tenants filed a counterclaim
alleging breach of contract, among other claims. (Id.). The landlord argued that the threeyear
statute of limitations barred the breach of contract claim, since the breach occurred in 2010 and
the tenants’ counterclaim was filed in 2019. (Id. at 588). However, the supreme court explained
that the landlord’s promise in the lease to maintain the property was an ongoing obligation. (Id. at
589). Thus, the 2016 incident constituted a distinct breach and separate cause of action from the
2010 incident. (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s ruling that the tenants’ 2019
breach of contract counterclaim against their landlord, arising from the 2016 incident, was timely
filed. (Id.).