339 P.3d 351
Alaska2014Background
- Park sued Chung for trespass alleging removal of trees from Park’s property without permission.
- Superior Court found no diminution in property value and no personal reason to restore trees, but awarded restoration damages for 50 trees ($23,500) and treble damages.
- Evidence showed trees removed near Lot 3 and debris buried on Park’s land; no direct proof of who removed trees, though testimony suggested Chung involvement.
- Experts disagreed on value impact: Park’s expert predicted substantial restoration cost; Chung’s expert argued little to no value impact.
- This Court held restoration costs are inappropriate when disproportionate to value loss and no reason personal exists; vacated the restoration damages and remanded for nominal damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper measure of damages for trespass | Park sought restoration costs as damages. | Damages should reflect diminution in value, not restoration costs. | Damages limited to diminution in value; restoration costs disallowed where disproportionate. |
| Availability of restoration damages without a reason personal | Restoration may be awarded for aesthetic/legally recognizable reasons. | No reason personal found; restoration not justified. | No recovery of restoration costs absent reason personal to owner. |
| Treble damages under AS 09.45.730 when only nominal damages available | Trespasser liable for treble damages if intentional. | Treble damages limited to appropriate compensatory baseline. | Treble damages not applicable to restoration where not appropriate baseline; compensate only diminution in value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Offshore Sys.-Kenai v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 282 P.3d 348 (Alaska 2012) (restoration costs overshadow value when disproportionate)
- Rego v. Rego, 259 P.3d 447 (Alaska 2011) (limits restoration costs when disproportionate to value)
- Wiersum v. Harder, 316 P.3d 557 (Alaska 2013) (damages measured by diminution in land value, absent reason personal)
- Osborne v. Hurst, 947 P.2d 1356 (Alaska 1997) (reason personal for replacement of trees where property held for views)
- Andersen v. Edwards, 625 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1981) (landowner may recover economic value of timber cut)
- Brown Jug, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 959, 688 P.2d 932 (Alaska 1984) (practice for appellate review; nominal damages referenced)