435 P.3d 883
Alaska2018Background
- Jonathan Fox registered an Oregon custody order (and two supplemental judgments) in Alaska; the orders granted visitation to Fox’s parents, Gary and Shannon Grace.
- Fox filed an expedited motion in Alaska to modify the Oregon visitation provisions, arguing the Graces could no longer adequately care for the children and seeking to discontinue grandparent visitation.
- The Alaska superior court denied Fox’s motion for lack of jurisdiction, finding the Oregon court had retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction and that Alaska could not modify the out-of-state order absent release of jurisdiction.
- The Graces moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Fox and his attorney, citing an Oregon order addressing jurisdiction and arguing Fox’s Alaska filing was not in good faith; the superior court awarded a $500 sanction against Fox’s attorney.
- Fox moved for reconsideration, asserting AS 25.30.320(2) (UCCJEA) authorized Alaska to modify the Oregon order because neither the children, nor a parent, nor a person acting as a parent resided in Oregon; the superior court denied reconsideration quickly without addressing that statutory subsection.
- The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s jurisdictional denial and the Rule 11 sanctions and remanded for the superior court to consider AS 25.30.320(2) and to follow proper Rule 11 procedures before imposing sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fox) | Defendant's Argument (Grace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alaska may modify an Oregon custody order under AS 25.30.320(2) | Alaska may modify because neither child, parent, nor person acting as a parent resides in Oregon | Oregon court retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction; Fox’s filing circumvented Oregon; Graces are persons acting as parents | Vacated superior court denial and remanded for consideration of AS 25.30.320(2); court erred by not addressing this subsection |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were proper | Sanctions were improper because superior court failed to consider jurisdictional basis and Fox had alleged Alaska residency | Sanctions appropriate because Fox knew of Oregon order denying his jurisdictional arguments and acted in bad faith | Vacated sanctions as premised on incomplete jurisdictional analysis and imposed without required Rule 95 procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Steven v. Nicole, 308 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013) (UCCJEA jurisdiction questions reviewed de novo)
- Kollander v. Kollander, 400 P.3d 91 (Alaska 2017) (Rule 11 sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Robertson v. Riplett, 194 P.3d 382 (Alaska 2008) (AS 25.30.320 alternative bases: either subsection may confer jurisdiction)
- Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 834 P.2d 1220 (Alaska 1992) (procedural requirements for imposing Rule 11 sanctions; must provide opportunity to be heard)
- Esch v. Superior Court of Third Judicial Dist., 577 P.2d 1039 (Alaska 1978) (notice and hearing required before imposing sanctions)