555 P.3d 516
Alaska2024Background
- The McCavits and the Lachers are neighboring lakefront property owners on Wasilla Lake, Alaska; the McCavits built a dock with a right-angled extension toward the Lacher property.
- The Lachers objected, claiming the extension interfered with their riparian rights and constituted a private nuisance, as it limited their ability to build their own dock and increased construction costs.
- The dispute went to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which declined to act due to regulatory ambiguity; the Lachers then sued in superior court.
- The court initially ruled for the Lachers, finding unreasonable interference and ordering removal of the extension; also awarding attorney's fees to the Lachers, prompting an appeal by the McCavits.
- On first appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court adopted a new multi-factor rule of reasonableness for riparian interference and remanded for reconsideration; on remand, the lower court again ruled for the Lachers and re-awarded attorney's fees.
- The McCavits appealed again, challenging both the findings and the award of attorney’s fees, particularly those associated with the Lachers’ claims against DNR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dock extension unreasonably interfered with the Lachers’ riparian rights | The extension impaired the Lachers' ability to build a dock and enjoy the lake | The extension did not significantly interfere; evidence insufficient to show major impairment | Extension unreasonably interfered with riparian rights; court's findings supported by evidence |
| Whether the extension constituted a private nuisance | Substantial and unreasonable interference with property use based on dock location and costs | Court failed to state how interference was substantial or unreasonable; harm not outweighing utility | Substantial interference found based on impairment of use; legal standard met |
| Appropriateness of adopting prior trial findings on remand | Findings from the first trial were factually supported and undisturbed on first appeal | Findings should have been reweighed in light of remand instructions and new rule | Adopting previous findings was not clear error; discretion properly exercised |
| Award of attorney’s fees, including those for DNR litigation | Entitled to full/enhanced fees as prevailing party; DNR litigation was related | Not prevailing party; DNR litigation unrelated and should not be compensated by McCavits | Vacated; fees related to DNR claims not assessable; enhancement was manifestly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- McCavit v. Lacher, 447 P.3d 726 (Alaska 2019) (articulated the new reasonableness standard for riparian rights interference and outlined a nine-factor test)
- Baypack Fisheries, L.L.C. v. Nelbro Packing Co., 992 P.2d 1116 (Alaska 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for multi-factor tests)
- Riddle v. Lanser, 421 P.3d 35 (Alaska 2018) (clarifies appellate standards on fact findings and attorney’s fees)
- Thorstenson v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 780 P.2d 371 (Alaska 1989) (fee apportionment requirements when parties have distinct claims)