Daniel S. Anderson, Alison Anderson, Stephen T. Lewis, Gerald Robert Lee, Terrence S. Valentine, Sally J. Valentine, Edward G. Wilson, Suzanne Hammond Wilson, James P. Hoeffler and Karyn J. Warner, as Trustees for and on Behalf of the Hoeffler Family Trust, Don Ward, Galen Gaunt, Claudia E. Hoversten, as Trustee for and on Behalf of the Hoversten Revocable Trust, Matthew F. Warnick, Herman J. Schliesing and Myra K. Schliesing, as Trustees for and on Behalf of the Schliesing Alaska Community Property Trust, Martin J. Boniek for Copper Valley Air Service, LLC, as its Managing Member, and Clare Jaeger v. Kirk Wilson and Julie Wilson, Daniel S. Anderson, Alison Anderson, Stephen T. Lewis, Gerald Robert Lee, Terrence S. Valentine, Sally J. Valentine, Edward G. Wilson, Suzanne Hammond Wilson, James P. Hoeffler and Karyn J. Warner, as Trustees for and on Behalf of the Hoeffler Family Trust, Don Ward, Galen Gaunt, Claudia E. Hoversten, as Trustee for and on Behalf of the Hoversten Revocable Trust, Matthew F. Warnick, Herman J. Schliesing and Myra K. Schliesing, as Trustees for and on Behalf of the Schliesing Alaska Community Property Trust, Martin J. Boniek for Copper Valley Air Service, LLC, as its Managing Member, and Clare Jaeger v. Kirk Wilson and Julie Wilson, 555 P.3d 13

The case is a property dispute between northern landowners (the Andersons and others) and their southern neighbors, the Wilsons, regarding lake-access land in remote Alaska.
The Andersons sued to establish a public easement over the Wilsons' property, claiming the right to traverse a road connecting them to a highway.
The Wilsons own the disputed tract (Tract B-1) and have previously allowed access under a private easement after a 2007 litigation settlement.
The Andersons asserted public access rights via RS 2477, by plat dedication, and under common law doctrines (necessity, prescription, estoppel), or alternatively, a private easement.
After a 12-day bench trial, the superior court rejected public easement claims, confirmed the existence of a private easement, and awarded the Wilsons 75% of their attorney's fees.
The Andersons appealed both the denial of public easement and the calculation/award of attorney's fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of RS 2477 Public Easement	Public use before land withdrawal created RS 2477 right of way	No public use before withdrawal; road was privately developed	No RS 2477 right; insufficient evidence of public use pre-withdrawal
Easement by Plat	Subdivision plat dedicated road for public use	No valid platting authority; any dedication was to private use	No public dedication by plat due to lack of official approval
Common Law Public Easement	Use was hostile/adverse; road necessary; estoppel from oral assurances	Use was permissive, not hostile; properties not landlocked	No public easements by prescription, implication, or estoppel
Attorney's Fees Award	Fee award excessive, records inadequate, rates unreasonable	Fees justified as prevailing party, due to complexity and bad faith	Fee award vacated/remanded for insufficient records/reasonableness

Price v. Eastham, 75 P.3d 1051 (Alaska 2003) (affirmative public use is required pre-withdrawal for RS 2477)
Laughlin v. Everhart, 678 P.2d 926 (Alaska 1984) (no public road dedication by plat without approval)
Swift v. Kniffen, 706 P.2d 296 (Alaska 1985) (prescriptive easement requires hostile, not merely permissive, use)
Freightways Terminal Co. v. Indus. & Comm. Constr., 381 P.2d 977 (Alaska 1963) (standard for easement by implication)
Ware v. Ware, 161 P.3d 1188 (Alaska 2007) (complexity as factor for enhanced fees)
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 327 P.3d 185 (Alaska 2014) (prevailing party determination and fee enhancement)