Summary
The Supreme Court of Alaska considered whether a settlement agreement required Brooks Range Exploration Company to transport mining equipment to Anchorage when transportation might violate the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. The court held that genuine factual issues concerning items Gordon claimed to have found required an evidentiary hearing before enforcement, while affirming enforcement for items Gordon purchased, received as gifts, or obtained in trade. The court also vacated attorney's fees related to the transportation dispute and affirmed fees concerning a separate annual-payment enforcement motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the superior court could enforce the settlement agreement without an evidentiary hearing when affidavits created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether transporting some items would violate the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
- Whether the Alaska Historic Preservation Act applies to historic, prehistoric, or archaeological resources that are merely temporarily situated on state-owned or state-controlled land.
- Whether the settlement agreement's legal-compliance provision was an enforceable condition precedent.
- Whether the attorney's-fee award associated with the partially reversed transportation-enforcement order had to be vacated, and whether a separate fee award concerning annual payments should remain undisturbed.
Holdings
- The superior court erred by enforcing the settlement agreement without an evidentiary hearing as to the items Gordon claimed to have found because the affidavits presented genuine issues of material fact concerning whether transporting those items would violate the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
- The AHPA applies only to abandoned historic, prehistoric, or archaeological resources situated on land owned or controlled by the state, not to personal property that merely passes temporarily over or rests temporarily on state land while remaining owned by another person.
- The provision making BREXCO's transportation obligation contingent on transportation not violating applicable law was an enforceable condition precedent because it was expressly stated in plain and unambiguous language.
- The attorney's-fee award based on the partially reversed transportation-enforcement order had to be vacated, while the separate fee award for enforcing BREXCO's annual-payment obligation remained affirmed.
Key quotations
“We therefore interpret the AHPA to apply only to abandoned historic, prehistoric, or archeological resources situated on land owned or controlled by the state.” (46 P.3d at 945-46)
“We conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact about whether the AHPA prohibits transporting the found items.” (46 P.3d at 948)
“For these reasons, we REVERSE the order requiring BREXCO to transport Gordon's found mining equipment to Anchorage, and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.” (46 P.3d at 949)
Factual background
BREXCO and BREVCO settled litigation with Wallace Gordon, Thelma Peterson, and the Gordon Family Trust. The settlement agreement required BREVCO to transport Gordon's mining equipment to Anchorage, but made that obligation contingent on transportation not violating state, federal, or local law. After BREVCO refused to transport the equipment because it believed the Alaska Historic Preservation Act applied, the trust sought enforcement. Affidavits created factual disputes about whether some items had been found by Gordon and were abandoned historic resources, while the evidence did not create comparable disputes as to items Gordon purchased, received as gifts, or obtained in trade.
Procedural history
BREXCO and BREVCO entered settlement agreements with Gordon, Peterson, and the Gordon Family Trust. After BREVCO declined to transport Gordon's mining equipment based on the Alaska Historic Preservation Act, the trust moved to enforce the settlement agreement. The superior court granted the motion, ordered transportation of the equipment, denied reconsideration, and awarded attorney's fees. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated one attorney-fee award, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Conduct further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing, to determine whether transporting the items Gordon claimed to have found would violate the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. The superior court must also determine reasonable, actual contractual attorney's fees on remand after the transportation dispute is resolved.