Hawkins v. Attatayuk
2014 Alas. LEXIS 56
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Harold Hawkins and Rosalind Attatayuk were former spouses who owned a house in St. Michael located on federally owned townsite land; a 1988 dissolution decree awarded the house to Hawkins.
- In 1993 Attatayuk applied for and in 1994 received a restricted townsite deed from the federal government, certifying no one else lived on or claimed the tract.
- In May 2011 Attatayuk sued Hawkins for trespass, alleging undisputed title via her restricted deed; Hawkins denied that title was undisputed and asserted the dissolution decree and fraud/invalidity defenses.
- The superior court granted Attatayuk partial summary judgment holding she "has title to the subject property" and barred Hawkins from arguing fraud in obtaining the deed; a jury later awarded nominal use damages to Attatayuk.
- Hawkins moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1360 limits state adjudication of restricted/Indian trust property); the superior court denied the motion and entered final judgment.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding the superior court adjudicated title to restricted townsite land and thus exceeded its jurisdiction; the case was remanded with directions to dismiss and Hawkins awarded prevailing-party fee treatment on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership or right to possession of restricted townsite property | Attatayuk: state court could decide because Hawkins did not properly contest title or his contest was a sham | Hawkins: federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1360) precludes state courts from adjudicating title or possession of restricted/Indian trust property | Court held state courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership/right to possession of restricted townsite lots and the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction |
| Whether Hawkins contested title sufficiently to implicate §1360(b) | Attatayuk: Hawkins’s challenge was a sham or time-barred so title was not genuinely in dispute | Hawkins: he clearly contested title at hearing and in his answer and attempted to raise fraud/invalidity defenses | Court held Hawkins did contest title; the superior court plainly adjudicated title by granting partial summary judgment |
| Whether the superior court could determine the viability of Hawkins’s defenses (e.g., fraud or statute of limitations) to deprive Attatayuk’s deed of effect | Attatayuk: Hawkins’s fraud claim would be time-barred, so state court could proceed because no viable challenge existed | Hawkins: determining validity of the restricted deed is barred because it would require adjudicating title/possession of restricted property | Court held state courts cannot look behind the restricted deed to decide merits or defenses; doing so would violate §1360(b) |
| Remedy and fees after finding lack of jurisdiction | Attatayuk: judgment and fees in her favor | Hawkins: case should be dismissed and judgment vacated; prevailing-party treatment on remand | Court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss; vacated award of attorney’s fees to Attatayuk and noted Hawkins is prevailing party for fee award purposes on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ollestead v. Native Village of Tyonek, 560 P.2d 31 (Alaska 1977) (state courts precluded from adjudicating ownership/right to possession of property subject to federal restriction against alienation)
- Heffle v. State, 633 P.2d 264 (Alaska 1981) (restricted townsite deed characterized as land subject to federal restriction against alienation)
- Foster v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 34 P.3d 1288 (Alaska 2001) (questions of subject matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo; prevailing-party fee discussion after dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)
- Hydaburg Co-op. Ass’n v. Hydaburg Fisheries, 925 P.2d 246 (Alaska 1996) (jurisdictional issues may be raised at any stage and court must address them)