476 P.3d 1129
Alaska2020Background:
- Subdivision CCRs prohibited removal of evergreen trees 6+ inches in diameter without Architectural Committee approval.
- Bixby sisters own Lot 4; Galipeau bought adjacent Lot 3 and intentionally cut multiple protected trees without Committee approval while preparing to build.
- Bixbys sued for breach of the CCRs and trespass; superior court granted summary judgment on liability and tried damages only.
- Arborist testified to tree replacement costs and values; trial court awarded compensatory restoration damages (~$54,600) and treble punitive damages (~$163,800), plus injunction, interest, and fees.
- Alaska Supreme Court held compensatory and punitive awards erroneous: restoration costs unsupported by evidence of diminution or a personal reason to restore, and punitive damages unavailable absent an independent tort; remanded for nominal damages.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure of compensatory damages | Bixby: restoration cost / tree value is appropriate proxy for their loss | Galipeau: Bixbys showed no actual loss or diminution in market value; trees were his property | Vacated restoration award; absent proof of diminution or personal reason to restore, only nominal damages warranted |
| Use of restoration costs | Bixby: entitled to restoration because of sentimental/aesthetic interest and impracticability of replacing on their lot | Galipeau: restoration award is a windfall; replacement would not restore original trees | Restoration costs inappropriate where disproportionate or no reasonable likelihood trees will be restored; Bixbys failed to prove required predicates |
| Punitive damages availability | Bixby: willful breach of CCRs and analogies to trespass statutes justify punitive/treble damages | Galipeau: breach of covenant is contract, not tort; punitive damages require independent tort | Vacated punitive award; breach of CCRs alone is contractual and does not support punitive damages absent independent tort |
| Applicability of common-interest statute (AS 34.08.670) | Bixby: subdivision is a planned/community and statute authorizes punitive relief for willful noncompliance | Galipeau: subdivision is not a common-interest community under the statute; residents not obligated to pay collective expenses | Statute inapplicable; subdivision does not meet definition of common-interest community, so it provides no basis for punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalenka v. Taylor, 896 P.2d 222 (Alaska 1995) (restrictive-covenant breaches sound in contract; punitive damages require independent tort)
- Osborne v. Hurst, 947 P.2d 1356 (Alaska 1997) (restoration costs permissible only if not disproportionate and owner has a personal reason to restore)
- Wiersum v. Harder, 316 P.3d 557 (Alaska 2013) (discusses appropriate measures of damages for tree-cutting and diminution analysis)
- Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Schwartz, 915 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1996) (breach of contract damages must reasonably correspond to actual loss)
- McKibben v. Mohawk Oil Co., 667 P.2d 1223 (Alaska 1983) (definition and limits of waste as a tort remedy)
- ARCO Alaska, Inc. v. Akers, 753 P.2d 1150 (Alaska 1988) (punitive damages in contract cases are generally inconsistent with compensatory contract policy)