Kevin O'Connell, Appellant v. Anthony Will and Paulette Will, Appellees

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that O'Connell had no standing to challenge the allegedly defective service of Anthony Will's satisfaction motion on Paulette Will, and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by considering the motion. It further held that the promissory note's attorney-fee provision covered reasonable fees and costs incurred in post-judgment enforcement of the judgment. The court vacated the satisfaction order, reversed the denial of post-judgment fees, and remanded; Justice Fabe, joined by Justice Christen, dissented and would have held that the contract did not authorize post-judgment collection costs.