Clayton Walker, Alaska Law Offices, Inc.
Anchorage, AK 99518 — 907-230-6988
Anchorage Alaska Real Estate 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”
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
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
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
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.
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.