Brandner v. Municipality of Anchorage, 327 P.3d 200

Sheila Brandner owned a single-family home on 1.17 acres in Anchorage; the municipal assessor inspected it and assigned a below-average condition rating.
The assessor (Muñoz) testified to a pre-repair combined land-plus-replacement cost figure he described verbally as “five sixty seven hundred,” which the record shows he meant as $560,700; he then subtracted about $61,000 to reach a $499,400 assessed value.
Brandner obtained an independent appraisal valuing the property at $385,000 and contractor repair estimates between $120,000–$140,000; she missed the municipal filing deadline for submitting those documents but was allowed to testify to their substance.
The Board adopted the assessor’s replacement-cost approach but (apparently through misunderstanding) used $567,000 as the pre-repair figure, then subtracted the maximum repair estimate ($140,000) to arrive at $427,000.
The superior court affirmed the Board; the Supreme Court concluded the Board intended to subtract $140,000 from the assessor’s intended $560,700 figure but made a clerical/arithmetical error and remanded for entry of $420,700 as the final assessed value.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s adopted base value had record support/is arbitrary	Brandner: Board relied on an arbitrary base value not supported by record	Municipality: Board’s base value is supported by assessor’s testimony and appraisal data	Court: The assessor meant $560,700; Board intended assessor’s figure minus repairs but miscalculated; remand to enter $420,700 consistent with intent
Whether exclusion of Brandner’s documentary appraisal and estimates was wrongful	Brandner: Exclusion denied her right to present material evidence	Municipality: Enforcement of filing deadline required by AMC; exclusion appropriate	Court: Brandner failed to show good-faith compliance with deadline; Board allowed testimony and relied on estimates; no abuse of discretion
Whether the Board applied a fundamentally wrong valuation principle	Brandner: Board improperly adopted Municipality’s valuation over her appraiser’s	Municipality: Board reasonably exercised discretion to prefer assessor’s approach	Court: Board’s valuation method was within discretion and not fundamentally wrong (subject to clerical correction)
Whether alleged harassment by Board member invalidated proceedings	Brandner: A board member’s conduct was harassing/intimidating	Municipality: No response; argued waived or not shown	Court: Argument waived for inadequate briefing; not considered further

Varilek v. Burke, 254 P.3d 1068 (Alaska 2011) (standard for reviewing BOE valuation determinations)
Horan v. Kenai Peninsula Borough Bd. of Equalization, 247 P.3d 990 (Alaska 2011) (deference to board valuations absent fraud or fundamentally wrong principle)
Stein v. Kelso, 846 P.2d 123 (Alaska 1993) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidence exclusion)
Gilbert v. Nina Plaza Condo Ass’n, 64 P.3d 126 (Alaska 2003) (pro se litigants afforded some procedural leniency)
Farmer v. State, Dep’t of Law, 235 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2010) (pro se litigants must make good-faith effort to follow rules)
Baseden v. State, 174 P.3d 233 (Alaska 2008) (arguments not adequately briefed are waived)