Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. The City and Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955

Yakutat sought to collect taxes from Adventure Tours; the company transferred assets to Kimberly Byler and then ABC Leasing to avoid tax liability.
A fraudulent conveyance trial in 2010 found in Yakutat's favor on the conveyance and on Kimberly's testimony in a debtor examination.
Adventure Tours alleged Chief Nichols falsely testified about a May 2007 conversation with Kimberly regarding the taxes.
Adventure Tours moved under Civil Rule 60(b)(3) for relief from judgment based on fraud and misconduct; trial court denied relief and awarded enhanced fees to Yakutat.
Superior Court denied motion for reconsideration and declined to reopen discovery; award of enhanced attorney’s fees affirmed on appeal.
Appellants appeal Rule 60(b)(3) denial, discovery denial, and attorney’s fees decision; standard of review applied is abuse of discretion with de novo legal standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Rule 60(b)(3) properly applied?	Adventure Tours: court misapplied standard and required extra tests.	Yakutat: correct clear-and-convincing standard applied with no extra tests.	Correct standard applied; no additional tests required.
Did Adventure Tours prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence?	Adventure Tours: evidence shows Nichols lied and tampered with evidence.	Yakutat: evidence does not meet clear-and-convincing threshold of fraud.	No clear and convincing fraud shown; denial affirmed.
Did the superior court abuse its discretion in denying reopen discovery?	Discovery could uncover critical timing and witness issues; new evidence warranted.	Discovery should have occurred before trial; late motion was improper.	No abuse; court had broad discretion and discovery should have occurred pre-trial.
Was the enhanced attorney’s fee award appropriate?	Rule 82 factors support due consideration of complexity and lack of reasonable grounds.	Award is warranted given complexity and lack of reasonable claims.	Affirmed enhanced fees; claims found complex and not reasonable.

McCall v. Coats, 777 P.2d 655 (Alaska 1989) (Rule 60(b)(3) requires proof of fraud or misconduct and that it affected trial fairness)
Babinec v. Yabuki, 799 P.2d 1325 (Alaska 1990) (due diligence considerations and standard for Rule 60(b)(3) relief)
Ware v. Ware, 161 P.3d 1188 (Alaska 2007) (fraud standards; consequences for Rule 60(b) motions)
Wagner v. Wagner, 183 P.3d 1265 (Alaska 2008) (clarifies requirements for showing fraud in Rule 60(b))
McCall v. Coats, 777 P.2d 655 (Alaska 1989) (reiterated standard for proving fraud in Rule 60(b)(3))
Williams v. Williams, 252 P.3d 998 (Alaska 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing Rule 60(b) rulings)
Prentzel v. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 169 P.3d 573 (Alaska 2007) (discovery and evidence standards in Alaska courts)
Hallam v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 91 P.3d 279 (Alaska 2004) (discretionary review of civil rulings and fee awards)
Walden v. Dpt. of Transp., 27 P.3d 297 (Alaska 2001) (discovery rulings and pre-trial opportunities)