Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court considered whether prejudgment interest in an eminent-domain proceeding should be calculated on the property compensation award together with attorney's fees and costs. It held that AS 09.55.440(a) applies prejudgment interest only to the compensation amount exceeding the condemning authority's deposit, not to attorney's fees and costs, and affirmed the postjudgment interest rate and quashing of a subpoena for the State's billing records. The court vacated the attorney's-fees award and remanded because the superior court had not stated reasons for excluding certain fees.
Holdings
- For purposes of prejudgment interest under AS 09.55.440(a), the amount finally awarded does not include attorney's fees and costs; it consists of compensation for the value of the property taken and allowable damages to the remainder.
- The superior court did not err by awarding postjudgment interest at 4.25% under AS 09.30.070(a); AS 09.55.440(a)'s 10.5% rate applies only to the excess of the final compensation award over the deposit, not to the entire judgment after judgment is entered.
- The court declined to address the challenge to the quashing of the subpoena for the State's attorneys' billing records because the issue was moot.
- When a superior court awards less than full attorney's fees and costs in a condemnation case, it must state its reasons for excluding particular activities or fees.
Questions Presented
- Whether attorney's fees and costs are included in the amount finally awarded for purposes of calculating prejudgment interest under AS 09.55.440(a).
- Whether the superior court correctly awarded postjudgment interest at 4.25% rather than 10.5%.
- Whether the challenge to the quashing of Keeton's subpoena for the State's attorneys' billing records remained a live controversy.
- Whether the superior court was required to state reasons for excluding certain attorney time and costs from an award in a condemnation proceeding.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (26)
- Moody v. Royal Wolf Lodge, 339 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2014)(followed)
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Darrow, 403 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2017)(followed)
- ARCTEC Servs. v. Cummings, 295 P.3d 916 (Alaska 2013)(followed)
- Gibson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 153 P.3d 312 (Alaska 2007)(followed)
- State v. Doyle, 735 P.2d 733 (Alaska 1987)(followed)
- City of Anchorage v. Lot 1 in Block 68, 409 P.2d 609 (Alaska 1966)(followed)
- Bridges v. Alaska Hous. Auth., 349 P.2d 149 (Alaska 1959)(followed)
- Williams v. City of Valdez, 603 P.2d 483 (Alaska 1979)(followed)
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Darrow, 403 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2017)(followed)
- Millman v. State, 841 P.2d 190 (Alaska App. 1992)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 26.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…