Year In Review

Farr v. Little

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Farr v. Little,[1] the Supreme Court held that when a superior court uses its discretion to impute income to a parent for child support purposes, it must set forth its factual findings and explanation for the imputed income. Little was awarded custody of her and Farr’s children and filed a motion for child support. Continue Reading »

Diego K. v. State Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Diego K. v. State Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that, when a court is making factual findings and legal conclusions in a child in need of aid (CINA) hearing, it is error to rely upon substantial information not in evidence. Between March 2014 and April 2016, a series of Continue Reading »

Kessler v. Kessler

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Kessler v. Kessler,[1] the supreme court held the mere use of separate property for marital purposes, without a donative intent, does not transform separate property into marital property. In 2010, Kenneth Kessler and Dianna Kessler were married; Dianna filed for divorce in 2015. Prior to their marriage, in 1999, Kenneth bought a condominium. The Continue Reading »

Wassillie v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Wassillie v. State,[1] the supreme court held that an incident report prepared by a staff member at a halfway house was inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Wassillie, who was serving out the remainder of a felony sentence at the Parkview Center halfway house, was found guilty of second-degree escape. Continue Reading »

Olivera v. Rude-Olivera

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Olivera v. Rude-Olivera,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that (1) “a party who fails to make required pretrial disclosures ‘without substantial justification’ may not . . . use that information as evidence at trial, ‘unless such failure is harmless,’” and (2) a party is entitled to recover enhanced attorney’s fees if the other Continue Reading »

State Department of Health & Social Services v. Michelle P.

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In State Department of Health & Social Services v. Michelle P.,[1] the supreme court held that a court’s authority to hear and decide a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) petition derives not from a grant of custody or supervision to the Office of Children Services (OCS) but from the child’s status as a child Continue Reading »

Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund,[1] the district court held that state law insurance claims are preempted by ERISA when they are rooted in an ERISA plan’s definition of the scope of covered charges. The Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund (“Fund”) was created under Continue Reading »

Reeves v. Godspeed Properties, LLC

Posted on October 31st, 2018

In Reeves v. Godspeed Properties, LLC,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska law recognizes partial extinguishment of easements through prescription. After a series of property transfers, Reeves owned an easement on a piece of Godspeed’s property. Reeves offered to sell the easement to Godspeed, but the parties were unable to come to an agreement. Godspeed Continue Reading »

Luch v. State

Posted on October 31st, 2018

In Luch v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that a married person is not entitled to a heat of passion defense based on the discovery of adultery unless the married person has personal knowledge of such adultery. In 2010, Luch overheard his wife, Jocelyn, talking with another man on the telephone. This began a Continue Reading »

Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court

Posted on October 31st, 2018

In Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court,[1] the court of appeals held the Public Defender Agency or the Office of Public Advocacy must pay for an indigent defendant’s travel to the site of their trial, including the expenses of a parent accompanying a minor who is unable to travel alone, if the defendant is Continue Reading »

Year In Review

Farr v. Little

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Farr v. Little,[1] the Supreme Court held that when a superior court uses its discretion to impute income to a parent for child support purposes, it must set forth its factual findings and explanation for the imputed income. Little was awarded custody of her and Farr’s children and filed a motion for child support. Continue Reading »

Diego K. v. State Department of Health & Social Services

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Diego K. v. State Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that, when a court is making factual findings and legal conclusions in a child in need of aid (CINA) hearing, it is error to rely upon substantial information not in evidence. Between March 2014 and April 2016, a series of Continue Reading »

Kessler v. Kessler

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Kessler v. Kessler,[1] the supreme court held the mere use of separate property for marital purposes, without a donative intent, does not transform separate property into marital property. In 2010, Kenneth Kessler and Dianna Kessler were married; Dianna filed for divorce in 2015. Prior to their marriage, in 1999, Kenneth bought a condominium. The Continue Reading »

Wassillie v. State

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Wassillie v. State,[1] the supreme court held that an incident report prepared by a staff member at a halfway house was inadmissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Wassillie, who was serving out the remainder of a felony sentence at the Parkview Center halfway house, was found guilty of second-degree escape. Continue Reading »

Olivera v. Rude-Olivera

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Olivera v. Rude-Olivera,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska held that (1) “a party who fails to make required pretrial disclosures ‘without substantial justification’ may not . . . use that information as evidence at trial, ‘unless such failure is harmless,’” and (2) a party is entitled to recover enhanced attorney’s fees if the other Continue Reading »

State Department of Health & Social Services v. Michelle P.

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In State Department of Health & Social Services v. Michelle P.,[1] the supreme court held that a court’s authority to hear and decide a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) petition derives not from a grant of custody or supervision to the Office of Children Services (OCS) but from the child’s status as a child Continue Reading »

Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund

Posted on November 5th, 2018

In Ray Klein, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund,[1] the district court held that state law insurance claims are preempted by ERISA when they are rooted in an ERISA plan’s definition of the scope of covered charges. The Alaska Electrical Health and Welfare Fund (“Fund”) was created under Continue Reading »

Reeves v. Godspeed Properties, LLC

Posted on October 31st, 2018

In Reeves v. Godspeed Properties, LLC,[1] the supreme court held that Alaska law recognizes partial extinguishment of easements through prescription. After a series of property transfers, Reeves owned an easement on a piece of Godspeed’s property. Reeves offered to sell the easement to Godspeed, but the parties were unable to come to an agreement. Godspeed Continue Reading »

Luch v. State

Posted on October 31st, 2018

In Luch v. State,[1] the court of appeals held that a married person is not entitled to a heat of passion defense based on the discovery of adultery unless the married person has personal knowledge of such adultery. In 2010, Luch overheard his wife, Jocelyn, talking with another man on the telephone. This began a Continue Reading »

Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court

Posted on October 31st, 2018

In Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court,[1] the court of appeals held the Public Defender Agency or the Office of Public Advocacy must pay for an indigent defendant’s travel to the site of their trial, including the expenses of a parent accompanying a minor who is unable to travel alone, if the defendant is Continue Reading »