PROPERTY LAW Mary Beth Barksdale In Randle v. Bay Watch Condominium Ass’n, 488 P.3d 970 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and declaratory order interpreting the governing documents of the condominium association. (Id. at 974–75). The defendant refused to allow representatives of the condominium association where he Continue Reading »
PROPERTY LAW Sloane Bessey In Kimp v. Fire Lake Plaza II, LLC, 484 P.3d 80 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that, barring ambiguity, the language of the lease controls when determining breach of lease claims, and that not paying rent is not the type of economic loss required for a promissory estoppel claim. (Id. Continue Reading »
PROPERTY LAW Angela Sbano In Seater v. Estate of Seater, the Alaska Supreme Court held that a superior court judge misinterpreted a different superior court judge’s decision when she stated that it required a property owner to remove all boulders he had placed on his property below the “extreme high water line” rather than the Continue Reading »
PROPERTY LAW Melissa English In Anderson v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the supreme court held that a foreclosure was a deprivation of the borrower’s property, and that the borrower therefore constitutionally entitled to a pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard. The borrower borrowed from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to purchase a home, which then assigned the Continue Reading »
In All Am. Oilfield, LLC v. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC,[1] the supreme court ruled that a contractor was not entitled to a mineral dump lien on natural gas that had not been extracted, hoisted, and raised from its natural reservoir. Cook Inlet controlled oil and gas wells in southcentral Alaska and contracted with All American Continue Reading »
In Black v. Whitestone Estates Condo. Homeowners’ Ass’n,[1] the supreme court held that a condominium had the authority to disregard payment directives concerning the back-payment of unpaid fees when it was provided for in the governing declaration. Craig Black and Camille Brill (Blacks) claimed that the arrangement for monthly dues for the maintenance of driveways Continue Reading »
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 »
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 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 »
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 »
