Gold Country Estates Preservation Group, Inc. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough
2012 Alas. LEXIS 28
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Kniffen purchased undeveloped tract south of Gold Country Estates to build Fox Bluffs Estates and bought Lot 5, Block 8 of Gold Country Estates to access Fox Bluffs via a road across that lot.
- Kniffens sought a variance to construct Fox Bluffs Drive across Lot 5, intersecting Bullion Drive, plus subdivision approval; the Platting Board denied the variance due to safety concerns, then reconsidered after a site visit and approved it.
- Gold Country Estates Preservation Group formed by nearby homeowners to challenge the approvals; Gold Country appealed to the Planning Commission, which denied Gold Country’s appeal, affirming the Platting Board’s decision.
- Gold Country filed suit alleging Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations and due process issues; superior court later adjudicated that Gold Country covenants restricted Lot 5 to residential use and barred its use as access, and Borough’s Rule 68 offer was not effective; summary judgment favored Borough on OMA claims, and the court declined attorney’s fees.
- Borough sought Rule 68 and Rule 82 fees; court denied fees, and both sides appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed the Borough on OMA and due process claims and affirmed denial of attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 14 site visit violated the Open Meetings Act | Gold Country argues site visit was improper notice and convening | Borough contends site visit was a meeting that was properly noticed | Site visit was a meeting with adequate notice; no OMA violation |
| Whether due process violations at the Platting Board were cured by Planning Commission review | Gold Country contends due process flaws persisted despite de novo review | Planning Commission cure negates Platting Board defects | Planning Commission de novo hearing cured due process violations |
| Whether the Open Meetings Act claims were moot and who prevailed for fees | Gold Country argues OMA claims remain live and relief possible | Borough maintains OMA issues moot but prevailing party status should be determined | OMA claims moot but Borough is prevailing party for fees; affirm denial of attorney's fees |
| Whether the Borough is entitled to attorney's fees under Rule 68 or Rule 82 | Gold Country challenges fee awards and request for sanctions against Cramer | Borough seeks Rule 68/82 fees | Court properly denied Rule 68 against Gold Country and Rule 82 relief; affirmed denial of fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullins v. Local Boundary Commission, 226 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2010) (opens mootness analysis for Open Meetings Act claims when relief mootants)
- Alaska Cmty. Coll. Fed'n of Teachers, Local No. 2404 v. Univ. of Alaska, 677 P.2d 886 (Alaska 1984) (Open Meetings Act matters of public importance may be reviewed despite mootness)
- Brookwood Area Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 702 P.2d 1317 (Alaska 1985) (meeting includes steps of deliberative processes and can be outside formal votes)
- Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773 (Alaska 2001) (standard for evaluating mootness and access to courts in public-interest actions)