Property Law

Collins v. Hall

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Collins v. Hall,[1] the supreme court held that in a property dispute between adjoining landowners, the lower court did not clearly err in concluding that no boundary had been established by acquiescence and in finding that the restrictive covenants had been abandoned. The Collinses and Halls disputed the boundary dividing their land in a Continue Reading »

Griswold v. Homer Board of Adjustment

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Griswold v. Homer Board of Adjustment,[1] the supreme court held that standing determinations concerning an “aggrieved person” is interpreted broadly, despite the legislature limiting standing in similarly related land-use decisions. Griswold appealed the Homer Advisory Planning Commission’s decision to grant a conditional use permit to another property within his zoning district to the Homer Continue Reading »

In re Estate of Hatten

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In In re Estate of Hatten,[1] the supreme court held surviving domestic partners do not inherit any of the intestate’s property as a testamentary matter. A man and woman lived together for twenty years in a domestic partnership before the man died intestate. The surviving domestic partner filed a claim against the man’s estate seeking Continue Reading »

Keeton v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Keeton v. State,[1] the supreme court held that attorney’s fees and costs are excluded from awards of prejudgment interest in cases of eminent domain. In 2014, the Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) sought to condemn a portion Keeton’s land for a highway-widening project. After a superior court-appointed master settled a dispute regarding the value Continue Reading »

Kelley v. Municipality of Anchorage, Board of Equalization

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Kelley v. Municipality of Anchorage, Board of Equalization,[1] the supreme court held that a board of equalization does not abuse its discretion by not considering evidence offered past assigned deadlines and also does not abuse its discretion by not finding a landowner’s sale of a nearby lot in the same subdivision or the landowner’s Continue Reading »

Kenai Landing, Inc. v. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Kenai Landing, Inc. v. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC.,[1] the supreme court held that an oil and gas lessor does not have the right to compensation for gas developed in pressuring a gas storage facility. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska (CINGSA) leases the Sterling C Reservoir and must maintain a certain Continue Reading »

McCavit v. Lacher

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In McCavit v. Lacher[1] the supreme court extended the rule of reasonable use for non-consumptive waters to rights of access and rights to use. The Lachers brought an action against upland neighboring landowners McCavits for extending their dock on Wasilla Lake towards their property, claiming it was an unreasonable interference with their riparian rights and Continue Reading »

Pasley v. Pasley

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Pasley v. Pasley,[1] the supreme court affirmed that a wife’s separate property in the marital home had not transmuted to marital property where she had intended or demonstrated an intent to donate the property to the marital estate. A husband and wife divorced and contested the characterization of the marital home as martial or Continue Reading »

Rosauer v. Manos

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Rosauer v. Manos, the supreme court held that a retroactively granted municipal permit conferred lawful authority for the removal of trees from a municipal right-of-way when lawful authority was required for their removal.[1] Chris and Jeanne Rosauer owned property across a municipal roadway from the property of Manos and Liddicoat (“Manos”). The Municipality of Continue Reading »

Schacht v. Kunimune

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Schacht v. Kunimune,[1] the Supreme Court held AS 13.33.211 applied to a dispute between a joint account owner and the creditor of his co-owner, and therefore absent clear contrary intent of the owners, that, for the purpose of third party creditors, an account’s fund’s belong to each co-owner in proportion to the net contribution Continue Reading »

Property Law

Collins v. Hall

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Collins v. Hall,[1] the supreme court held that in a property dispute between adjoining landowners, the lower court did not clearly err in concluding that no boundary had been established by acquiescence and in finding that the restrictive covenants had been abandoned. The Collinses and Halls disputed the boundary dividing their land in a Continue Reading »

Griswold v. Homer Board of Adjustment

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Griswold v. Homer Board of Adjustment,[1] the supreme court held that standing determinations concerning an “aggrieved person” is interpreted broadly, despite the legislature limiting standing in similarly related land-use decisions. Griswold appealed the Homer Advisory Planning Commission’s decision to grant a conditional use permit to another property within his zoning district to the Homer Continue Reading »

In re Estate of Hatten

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In In re Estate of Hatten,[1] the supreme court held surviving domestic partners do not inherit any of the intestate’s property as a testamentary matter. A man and woman lived together for twenty years in a domestic partnership before the man died intestate. The surviving domestic partner filed a claim against the man’s estate seeking Continue Reading »

Keeton v. State

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Keeton v. State,[1] the supreme court held that attorney’s fees and costs are excluded from awards of prejudgment interest in cases of eminent domain. In 2014, the Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) sought to condemn a portion Keeton’s land for a highway-widening project. After a superior court-appointed master settled a dispute regarding the value Continue Reading »

Kelley v. Municipality of Anchorage, Board of Equalization

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Kelley v. Municipality of Anchorage, Board of Equalization,[1] the supreme court held that a board of equalization does not abuse its discretion by not considering evidence offered past assigned deadlines and also does not abuse its discretion by not finding a landowner’s sale of a nearby lot in the same subdivision or the landowner’s Continue Reading »

Kenai Landing, Inc. v. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC.

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Kenai Landing, Inc. v. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska, LLC.,[1] the supreme court held that an oil and gas lessor does not have the right to compensation for gas developed in pressuring a gas storage facility. Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska (CINGSA) leases the Sterling C Reservoir and must maintain a certain Continue Reading »

McCavit v. Lacher

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In McCavit v. Lacher[1] the supreme court extended the rule of reasonable use for non-consumptive waters to rights of access and rights to use. The Lachers brought an action against upland neighboring landowners McCavits for extending their dock on Wasilla Lake towards their property, claiming it was an unreasonable interference with their riparian rights and Continue Reading »

Pasley v. Pasley

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Pasley v. Pasley,[1] the supreme court affirmed that a wife’s separate property in the marital home had not transmuted to marital property where she had intended or demonstrated an intent to donate the property to the marital estate. A husband and wife divorced and contested the characterization of the marital home as martial or Continue Reading »

Rosauer v. Manos

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Rosauer v. Manos, the supreme court held that a retroactively granted municipal permit conferred lawful authority for the removal of trees from a municipal right-of-way when lawful authority was required for their removal.[1] Chris and Jeanne Rosauer owned property across a municipal roadway from the property of Manos and Liddicoat (“Manos”). The Municipality of Continue Reading »

Schacht v. Kunimune

Posted on April 14th, 2020

In Schacht v. Kunimune,[1] the Supreme Court held AS 13.33.211 applied to a dispute between a joint account owner and the creditor of his co-owner, and therefore absent clear contrary intent of the owners, that, for the purpose of third party creditors, an account’s fund’s belong to each co-owner in proportion to the net contribution Continue Reading »