Alaska Supreme Court
Janice L. Park v. Bradley Brown and Karen Brown
June 7, 2024549 P.3d 934
Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court held that Janice Park established adverse possession of both the fenced and extrapolated areas adjoining her residential lot. The court concluded that possession could be tacked to her former husband's possession, that the 2003 amendments did not eliminate tacking, and that Park's maintenance and use of the extrapolated area satisfied the statutory elements. The court also rejected Park's judicial-bias claim, reversed the judgment, vacated the attorney's-fee award, and remanded for entry of judgment in Park's favor.
Holding
- Whether Park's possession could be tacked to her former husband's possession.. Park's possession was continuous and uninterrupted because either Park or her former husband possessed and held title to the property throughout the relevant period, and their relationship established the required privity. The divorce-related transfer of title and temporary removal of Park did not interrupt adverse possession against the Browns.
- Whether the 2003 amendments to AS 09.45.052 abolished or altered tacking.. The 2003 amendments narrowed the circumstances in which adverse possession is available but did not abolish or alter the common-law doctrine of tacking.
- Whether Park proved the elements of adverse possession as to the extrapolated area.. Park proved by clear and convincing evidence that her possession of the extrapolated area was continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile to the Browns.
- Whether the superior court judge was biased against Park.. The judge's comments expressing opposition to the fairness or general concept of adverse possession did not establish judicial bias because they reflected legal views formed during the proceedings, not reliance on extrajudicial information or prejudice making continued participation unfair.
Docket S18592