Greenway v. Heathcott, 294 P.3d 1056

Greenway sued Heathcott in 2007 alleging identity theft, breach of domestic partnership and fiduciary duties, and related fraude claims.
A long, one-day bench trial occurred in April 2011, with Greenway and Heathcott appearing pro se; the court denied two continuance requests prior to trial.
The morning of trial, the court quashed Greenway’s subpoena for FBI Agent Clapper, which Greenway sought to call in support of identity-theft claims.
Greenway introduced 78 exhibits; the court frequently questioned her to clarify relevance, and a telephonic witness (Carl Bauman) testified in her case-in-chief.
The superior court subsequently issued findings denying Greenway’s claims and dismissed the action with prejudice; Greenway appealed.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion or bias by the trial judge and upholding the denial of the requested continuances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial bias and appearance of bias	Greenway asserts bias and appearance of favoritism toward Heathcott.	Heathcott contends no bias; decisions were proper.	No abuse of discretion; no bias or appearance of bias supported by the record.
Continuance denial as abuse of discretion	Court should have continued to allow Greenway to retain a chosen attorney and prepare.	Court properly weighed diligence, delay risks, and finality interests.	Not an abuse of discretion; denial supported by diligence and delay considerations.
Admissibility of witness affidavits and telephonic testimony	Affidavits should have been admitted and witnesses could testify telephonically.	Affidavits were hearsay; telephonic testimony not required; trial court acted within discretion.	Affidavits properly rejected; telephonic testimony not required given circumstances.
Request for continuance to obtain Agent Clapper's testimony	Court should have continued to obtain Agent Clapper’s evidence.	No formal continuance request; record shows no persuasive need to delay trial.	No error; informal requests did not establish a continuance duty.
Overall sufficiency of evidence to support identity theft and related claims	Evidence establishes identity theft and fiduciary breaches by Heathcott.	Evidence does not meet burden; Greenway failed to prove claims.	Court’s findings supported dismissal; Greenway failed to prove claims.

Azimi v. Johns, 254 P.3d 1054 (Alaska 2011) (recusal due to bias; standard of review for bias disputes)
Phillips v. State, 271 P.3d 457 (Alaska App. 2012) (recusal when appearance of bias; applicable standard)
Lacher v. Lacher, 993 P.2d 413 (Alaska 1999) (bias analysis; past conduct not controlling for recusal)
Taylor v. Gill St. Invs., 743 P.2d 345 (Alaska 1987) (continuance considerations and due diligence in requesting)