Fairbanks North Star Borough v. Victory Ministries of Alaska, Inc., and Camp Li-Wa Inc., 515 P.3d 111

Background

Victory Ministries of Alaska (a 501(c)(3)) operates Camp Li-Wa near Fairbanks and has long received a charitable property tax exemption.
The Fairbanks North Star Borough discovered that portions of the camp were being marketed and rented to the general public and requested usage information; Victory failed to timely provide full responses.
In December 2018 the Borough assessor partially revoked Victory’s tax exemption; Victory appealed to the superior court.
In January 2020 the superior court remanded to the assessor for detailed findings, directed Victory to appeal any new assessor decision to the Board of Equalization, and expressly closed the superior-court case.
The assessor issued more detailed findings in August 2020; Victory appealed those findings to both the Board and the superior court and filed a motion in the closed 2019 case to enforce the court’s remand order.
The superior court nonetheless sua sponte granted Victory’s original 2019 appeal on the merits (nunc pro tunc). The Borough appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Victory)	Defendant's Argument (Borough)	Held
Whether the superior court had subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the closed 2019 appeal after remand, supplemental assessor findings, and a new appeal pending	Victory: Its motion to enforce the court's remand order reacquired jurisdiction so the court could decide the merits	Borough: The court had closed the case and returned jurisdiction; new administrative findings superseded the old decision and a new appeal was pending, so the closed case could not be decided	Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the closed appeal; superior court's merits order vacated
Whether Rule 520(c) or a motion to enforce can revive jurisdiction to reconsider a closed administrative appeal on the merits	Victory: Rule 520(c) allows the court to direct appropriate relief after reacquiring jurisdiction	Borough: Rule and motion to enforce do not authorize recalling the mandate to reexamine the merits; recall of mandate is extraordinary and rarely permitted	Rule 520(c) did not authorize the court to reopen and decide the merits of the closed appeal
Whether an entry nunc pro tunc could retroactively validate the superior court's merits ruling in the closed case	Victory: The court labeled its relief nunc pro tunc to give it retroactive effect	Borough: Nunc pro tunc is limited to correcting clerical or ministerial errors and cannot amend a judgment or revive jurisdiction	Nunc pro tunc could not be used to amend the prior judgment or cure the jurisdictional defect
Whether the court’s sua sponte merits decision without considering the new assessor findings and without additional briefing violated procedural due process	Victory: The court was enforcing its prior order and could resolve the matter	Borough: The August 2020 findings were not considered; parties were deprived of opportunity to brief and argue the new administrative decision	The court’s procedure was improper; Borough was entitled to be heard on the new findings; the merits order was vacated

Key Cases Cited

Hawkins v. Attatayuk, 322 P.3d 891 (Alaska 2014) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
Nw. Med. Imaging, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 151 P.3d 434 (Alaska 2006) (definition and limits of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Amoco Prod. Co., 676 P.2d 595 (Alaska 1984) (authority to enforce remand instructions to an agency)
Isaacson Structural Steel Co. v. Armco Steel Corp., 640 P.2d 812 (Alaska 1982) (limits on use of nunc pro tunc to alter judgments)
Peterson v. Swarthout, 214 P.3d 332 (Alaska 2009) (explanation of nunc pro tunc and its limited remedial use)
Rowland v. Monsen, 135 P.3d 1036 (Alaska 2006) (due process requires opportunity to be heard)
Wanamaker v. Scott, 788 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1990) (jurisdictional defects cannot be waived)