Clayton Walker, Alaska Law Offices, Inc.
Anchorage, AK 99518 — 907-230-6988
Anchorage Alaska Company Attorney Services
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”
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.
It’s good to get out and take in the views on a sunny day. From Wolverine Peak across the Chugach Range. Lots of people were out for the adventure. I wound up meeting with a judge, a former board member and client at various points along the hike.
It’s good to get out and take in the views on a sunny day. From Wolverine Peak across the Chugach Range. Lots of people were out for the adventure. I wound up meeting with a judge, a former board member and client at various points along the hike.
I frequently am asked by landlords and tenant how long different furnishings should last. This question comes up frequently when a landlord wants to charge the tenant with the cost of repair or replacement of components in a rental property. Landlords tend to want to charge the complete cost of replacement on the last tenant in possession before the item broke or was scheduled for replacement. In contrast the tenant is not liable for mere ordinary wear and tear. The closer the furnishing is to its life expectancy before failure or replacement the more it looks like the failure was simply ordinary wear and tear. The parties could rely on pictures and anecdotal evidence of the life expectancy of home components. Or they could hire an expert to give evidence and direction. Or they could look to industry standard material. A recent study was performed in 2006 by the National Association of Home Builders and Bank of America Home — The Equity Study of Life Expectancy of Home Components.
This information can also be used for scheduling maintenance and refurbishment of rental property or evaluating structures for acquisition. Knowing the expected life of the residence components can also aid in forecasting future property maintenance expenses. Using the list you can find which components are near their life expectancy and either negotiate a reduction in price on those components.
If you are an investment property buyer, landlord, tenant and want more information on how you can use this information in your business, give us a call at 907-375-9226 to schedule an appointment.
By: Clayton Walker, JD
DEARLOVE
v.
CAMPBELL
May 31, 2013
A driver caused injury to the passenger of another car in a two-car accident. The passenger brought suit for damages, including her insurer’s subrogated claim for medical expenses. State Farm Insured both the driver and passenger. The driver made an early offer of judgment, which the passenger did not accept. State Farm then made a direct payment to itself reducing the amount from the passenger’s potential recovery. The driver then made a second offer of judgment, which the passenger did not accept. After trial both parties claimed prevailing party status; the driver sought attorney’s fees under Alaska Civil Rule 68.
The superior court ruled that the Driver’s first offer of judgment did earnRule 68 fees, but the second offer did. Both parties appealed, arguing the superior court improperly considered the State Farm Insurance’s payment in its Rule 68 rulings. The Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the trial court must take into account State Farm’s payment to itself had when evaluating the offers of judgment.
The Supreme Court found the record unclear on the nature of State Farm’s. The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the decision that the second offer of judgment entitled the driver to Rule 68 fees and remanded for further proceedings on this issue. Hopefully a closer look at the effect of State Farm’s treatment of its insureds results in a fair outcome for their policy holders.
In 2007, Deborah Kyzer Ivy, a shareholder of Calais Company, Inc. (Calais), filed a complaint against Calais seeking involuntary corporate dissolution. In May 2009, Ivy and Calais reached a settlement agreement (Agreement) with appraisal valuation clauses. The clause provided that Calais agreed to purchase Ivy’s shares at “fair value” as determined by a three-member panel of appraisers. The appraisers disagreed over the fair value of Calais. Two of the appraisers agreed the fair value of Calais was $92.5 million; one appraiser dissented, valuing Calais at $43 million.
Calais sought to avoid the high valuation by arguing the two majority appraisers had failed to comply with the appraisal procedure mandated by the Agreement and the Agreement’s definition of “fair value.” The superior court ultimately declined to rule on the issue, concluding that interpreting the term “fair value” was beyond its scope of authority under the terms of the Agreement. Consequently, the court ordered Calais to purchase Ivy’s shares based on the majority appraisers’ high valuation.
Calais appealed. The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s final order and remanded for the court to remand to the appraisers with explicit instructions to calculate the “fair value” of Calais as defined by AS 10.06.630(a), as required by the Agreement.
With $50 million at stake, you can buy a lot of argument in six years. Ivy sought a valuation in 2007 before the market meltdown and at the peak of the market. Ivy is probably lucky she didn’t get stuck selling at the bottom of the market.