Clayton Walker, Alaska Law Offices, Inc.
Anchorage, AK 99518 — 907-230-6988
Alaska Supreme Court Attorney
Clayton Walker, Attorney
Alaska Law Offices, Inc.
240 E Tudor Rd, Ste. 230
Anchorage, AK 99503
The annual right of passage for Anchorage property owners is the receipt in the mail of the Anchorage Board of Equalization green property appraisal card. If you do not agree with the property value as assessed you may appeal the valuation. You may appeal on the grounds that the appraisal is “unequal, excessive, improper or under evaluation.” Continue reading “Anchorage Board of Equalization — Property Taxes”
Real Property Lawyers applied the Fair Housing Act’s section 3604(c) to a Craigslist advertisement for a one-bedroom apartment. The Connor Group placed an ad on Craigslist for an apartment in Dayton, Ohio, advertising a “great bachelor pad for any single man looking to hook up.” The Miami Valley Fair Housing Center brought suit against the Connor Group for violating the Fair Housing Act. The case went to trial. The jury found that the ad did not violate the act. Miami Valley appealed the district court’s denial of their Rule 59 motion for a new trial. The Connor Group cross-appealed because after winning the trial they were denied a recovery of their attorney fees. On appeal the court sent the parties back for a new trial. The court ruled that the jury instructions improperly stated the law. The full case can be found here.
If you are an Alaskan landlord, Alaskan property manager or Alaskan real estate agent and want to avoid Fair Housing Act violations call us at 907-375-9226 to review your advertisement policy.
Anchorage Real Property Lawyer
Today the Alaska Supreme Court issued an interesting evaluation of 60(b)(5) motions to modify inequitable judgments.
Today the Alaska Supreme Court in a three to two decision, sent Chilkoot Charlies to trial on an Alcohol Server wrongful death claim. The Alaska statute only imposes liability on bars and servers of alcohol if they serve alcohol to someone who is visibly drunk. The plaintiff did not offer testimony that the person was intoxicated when they Chilkoot Charlies served the alcohol. Instead, the plaintiff offered circumstantial evidence about the drinkers condition before and after leaving Chilkoot Charlies, and how much they had drunk at Chilkoot Charlies. The Alaska Supreme Court stated circumstantial evidence was sufficient to allow the Plaintiff’s to present their case to a jury.
On June 25, 2010, the defendant, Andrea Santoyo, and Jessica Fratis became involved in an argument. Apparently, during this argument, Santoyo flipped a cigarette at Fratis. (The cigarette did not hit her, but went by her head.) Fratis became angry and started hitting Santoyo. As the fight continued, Santoyo pulled out a knife and stabbed Fratis several times. Miguel Slats intervened in the fight and received a cut on his side that was five inches long, as well as a one-inch cut to his left arm.
Bystanders called 911, and Santoyo fled the area. But she was apprehended by the police a few blocks away. Fratis was taken to the hospital where she received emergency surgery. She was in the hospital for approximately six weeks recovering from her wounds. Slats was hospitalized for four or five days for his wounds.
The State charged Santoyo with one count of assault in the first degree for assaulting Jessica Fratis and one count of assault in the first degree for assaulting Miguel Slats. In a jury trial, Santoyo argued that she had acted in self-defense. The jury rejected Santoyo’s self-defense argument, convicting her of both counts of assault in the first degree.
At sentencing, Santoyo proposed the mitigating factor that, in committing the offense, she had “acted with serious provocation from the victim.” In order to establish a mitigating factor, the defendant must prove the mitigating factor to the court by clear and convincing evidence. In order to prove the serious-provocation mitigating factor, the defendant must show provocation “sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation, other than a person who is intoxicated, under the circumstances as the defendant reasonably believed them to be … .” In addition, the defendant’s response must be proportional to the provocation. Whether the response is proportional “involves a common sense balancing of the seriousness of the defendant’s crime against the seriousness of the provocation.”
In rejecting the mitigating factor, the superior court concluded that Santoyo’s conduct of inflicting serious physical injury with a knife was disproportionate to any provocation that she had received. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Clayton Walker, JD
907-375-9226
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
A couple divorced in 1992. The divorce decree did not divide the parties’ property. The man now receives military retirement benefits from over 22 years of service in the United States military. In October 2010 the woman filed a motion seeking a post. The man opposed, arguing that the woman’s claim was barred by (1) the statute of limitations; (2) laches; and (3) estoppel. The superior court concluded that the woman could properly bring her motion, that her motion was not barred by the statute of limitations, and that laches barred only the retrospective division of the man’s retirement benefits. The man appealed. The court affirmed the decision on the merits, although it remanded on other issues. If you don’t get the Alaska court to issue a property decree when you divorce your spouse can return decades later and ask for more.
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
Petro Alaska v. Davis Wright Tremaine
Corporation’s shareholders brought a derivative suit against a shareholder-director and the corporation’s former attorneys for fiduciary fraud, fraudulent conveyance, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court ruled all the claims were time-barred. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims accept two claims against the law firms. Thirty five pages of information on statutes of limitations, tolling, discovery rule, and the distinction between attorney fee awards as damages versus costs.
[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
CLAYTON WALKER, JD
JULY 20, 2013
Patrick
v.
Municipality of Anchorage,
Anchorage Transportation Commission
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
S-14360
No. 1464 – July 19, 2013
The Alaska Supreme Court issued another decision concerning Alaska administrative board process of revoking chauffeur’s licenses. The case doesn’t break new ground. However, it stands as a reminder
CLAYTON WALKER, JD
Original Opinion JULY 20, 2013
Rehearing October 10, 2011
SOP, INC.
v.
STATE OF ALASKA,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Supreme Court No. S-14541
OPINION No. 6800 – July 19, 2013
The Alaska Supreme Court revoked Nancy Lakes area homeowner’s motorized ground based access to their properties along ATV trails by invalidating their special use permits as unlawfully issued easements.
CLAYTON WALKER, JD
JULY 20, 2013
Varilek
v.
Municipality of Anchorage,
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
ALASKA SUPREME COURT
S-14448
The Alaska Supreme Court issued another decision addressing Alaska municipal real property tax valuation appeal. The case doesn’t break new ground. However, it stands as a reminder of the the appellate process on municipal tax appeals and the standards of review used by the courts. The matter arose from the Anchorage Municipalities appraisal assessment in January 2010. You can expect that the full appeal process from filing through a Supreme Court opinion may take as long as 42 months as it did in this case. That fact, combined with the review standards addressed in the opinion make it clear that the boards opinion is likely to stand if it is based on based on substantial evidence applied on a reasonable basis involving the agency’s expertise. These facts underscore why engaging tax counsel is necessary. Counsel can advise you on the merits of your case. Counsel can assist in determining the valuation method used by the municipality in your matter. Counsel can assist in creating a strategic plan for accumulating and presentation of your evidence before the board. They can also keep you from spending 42 months pressing a legal theory that was repeatedly rejected.
For an appointment call
907-375-9226