Gold Dust Mines, Inc. v. Little Squaw Gold Mining Co.
299 P.3d 148
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Two mining companies entered a ten-year lease; holdover tenancy continued after expiration.
- Del Ackels staked overlapping claims in the holdover period and filed location notices with the state.
- Little Squaw (the former lessor) sued Gold Dust Mines and the Ackelses in 2007 seeking quiet title, ejectment, and damages; Gold Dust counterclaimed for labor, etc.
- Superior Court ruled for Little Squaw on most issues, but reversed a prior summary judgment on the lease duration and piercing the corporate veil against Gail Ackels, remanding for further proceedings.
- Key issues included whether the lease remained in operation through 2008, whether staking during holdover created a constructive trust for Little Squaw, the holdover tenancy effects, department adjudications, and veil-piercing liability; and whether damages and attorney’s fees were appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the lease in operation through October 2008? | Little Squaw contends lease persisted, so 2008 stakings were under lease. | Gold Dust contends holdover was not the lease; no extension. | Yes; lease remained in operation through Oct 2008. |
| Were the 2003–2008 staking efforts held in constructive trust for Little Squaw? | Ackels staked on behalf of Little Squaw under the lease. | Stakings were not for Little Squaw; independent actions. | Yes; staking during holdover held in constructive trust for Little Squaw. |
| Was Jury Instruction No. 18 erroneous on holdover tenancy? | Instruction correctly stated holdover law and the parties’ agreement. | Instruction flawed regarding agreement on post-termination consequences. | Not plain error; instruction proper. |
| Does Del Ackels’ personal bankruptcy bar the holdover obligations? | Bankruptcy discharge affects Gold Dust Mines’ debts. | Corporate obligations survive bankruptcy; distinct entities. | Bankruptcy did not discharge Gold Dust Mines; corporate entity distinct. |
| Can Gail Ackels be held liable for reclamation costs via veil-piercing? | Gail shared ownership and control; liable under veil-piercing. | Need explicit factual findings for piercing the veil. | Remand for specific findings; initial judgment against Gail reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miscovich v. Tryck, 875 P.2d 1293 (Alaska 1994) (constructive trust and adverse-interest rules in mining)
- Klondike Indus. Corp. v. Gibson, 741 P.2d 1161 (Alaska 1987) (piercing the corporate veil factors and abuse of corporate form)
- Ashbrook v. O'Harra, 581 P.2d 218 (Alaska 1978) (equitable estoppel on affidavits of labor)
- L.D.G., Inc. v. Brown, 211 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2009) (six-factor framework for veil piercing; mere instrumentality)
- Murat v. F/V Shelikof Strait, 793 P.2d 69 (Alaska 1990) (primary consideration: whether corporate form is abused)