Cowan v. Yeisley
255 P.3d 966
Alaska2011Background
- 1948: US patent to Claude Yeisley for Tract A (4.45 acres) in Ketchikan.
- 1956: deed to Cowans (Lot 1) granting a perpetual right of way over a 30-foot strip along Tract A.
- 1960–1973: subsequent deeds convey other portions to Yeisleys and the Smiths; none mention the 30-foot strip.
- 1979–1981: plats 80-9 and 81-40 show the right-of-way and are recorded, with signatures by Yeisleys only; plats are relied on to dedicate the land.
- 1986: Cowans’ quiet title action dismissed for lack of prosecution; 2006: Sharon Yeisley conveys part of her property to the Byrons; 2006–2008: multiple summary-judgment and trial proceedings; Alaska Supreme Court remands on adverse possession issues.
- 2011 Alaska Supreme Court: holds 1956 deed conveys an easement, not a fee, and that applying the post-2003 adverse possession statute was erroneous; remands for reconsideration of adverse possession under pre-2003 law and for validity of plats depending on possession; attorney-fee awards vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1956 deed conveyed a fee title or an easement to Cowans. | Cowans contend deed conveyed land ownership. | Borough argues deed created an easement only. | Deed unambiguously grants an easement, not a fee. |
| Whether the adverse possession ruling should apply pre- or post-2003 statute. | Pre-2003 law governs; genuine issue under former statute. | Post-2003 law controls; Cowans lack color of title or good-faith belief. | Error to apply 2003 statute; remand for pre-2003 analysis. |
| Whether the disputed land was validly dedicated to the public via plats 80-9 and 81-40. | Cowans’ ownership or easement status affects plat validity. | Plat recording implied dedication to public if Cowans held easement. | Remanded; validity depends on whether Cowans adversely possessed pre-1980. |
| Whether waiver, laches, or estoppel bar Cowans’ or Sharon’s claims. | Delays did not waive rights; lack of prejudice forecloses estoppel. | Delay could imply waiver/estoppel and prejudice the Borough. | No waiver, laches, or estoppel found for Cowans; Sharon’s claims not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillingham Commercial Co., Inc. v. City of Dillingham, 705 P.2d 410 (Alaska 1985) (right-of-way interpretation and easements generally)
- Norken Corp. v. McGahan, 823 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1991) (deed interpretation and implied dedication principles)
- Hansen v. Davis, Ayers v. Day & Night Fuel Co. (Alaska 1969) (definition of hostility and permissive use in adverse possession)
- City of Anchorage v. Nesbett, 530 P.2d 1324 (Alaska 1975) (prescriptive rights and related concepts for municipality actions)