Keenan v. Meyer
424 P.3d 351
Alaska2018Background
- Michael and Dolores Keenan and Hugh Wade subdivided a 5-acre parcel at MacDonald Spit into three lots and created a public access easement and a memorandum that contemplated shared use of a well.
- Wade and Keenan later partitioned Lot 3 into Lot 3A-1 (Wade, later sold to the Meyers) and Lot 3A-2 (Keenans); recorded reciprocal easements and a recorded access easement along the Keenans’ western boundary (running with the land).
- Jackson and Kandice Meyer purchased Lot 3A-1, renovated the cabin, sought motorized access and water from the Lot 3 well, and had some initial access via Jerry’s Trail until access across Lot 2 was closed.
- Disputes arose when the Meyers cleared and attempted to improve the recorded access easement and used the Lot 3 well; the Keenans asserted limits on easement use, posted signs, placed obstructions, rotated and later enlarged a well house to encroach on the easement, and in October 2013 cut off the Meyers’ water during pending litigation.
- The superior court found the Meyers had rights to use the access easement for pedestrian, ATV, and car/light truck travel and had access to the well by implied easement/estoppel/necessity; it awarded compensatory loss-of-use damages for the cabin (for the four months without water) and for loss of use of the easement during the litigation, and awarded full attorney’s fees based on Rule 82 enhancements including bad-faith conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meyers) | Defendant's Argument (Keenans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proper measure and amount of loss-of-use damages for cabin when water cut off | Meyers: entitled to loss-of-use damages measured by reasonable rental value for period without water ($350/day for 4 months) | Keenans: Meyers didn’t occupy daily, winter rate lower, could have hauled water | Court: affirmed loss-of-use award; owner may recover for deprivation of use even if not in residence; rental rate supported by evidence and credibility findings not clearly erroneous |
| 2. Loss-of-use damages for access easement during litigation | Meyers: entitled to damages for deprivation of lawful right to use easement from April 2012 onward (when threatened) | Keenans: no evidence Meyers stopped using easement in April 2012; actual inconvenience came later | Court: affirmed award; threat and conduct caused deprivation of right to use and supported damages even without daily use proof |
| 3. Whether awarding both easement and cabin loss-of-use is double recovery | Keenans: overlap during Oct 2013–Feb 2014 means duplicative recovery because easement only valuable as access to cabin | Meyers: easement and cabin are distinct interests; loss of one did not entirely negate value of the other | Court: affirmed separate awards; two distinct injuries with different values, so no impermissible double recovery |
| 4. Award of full attorney’s fees under Alaska R. Civ. P. 82 (including enhancement for bad faith) | Meyers: baseline fees were reasonable; enhancements justified by complexity, rates, hours, staffing, unreasonableness of Keenans’ positions, and vexatious/bad-faith litigation conduct (cutting off water during litigation and enlarging well house) | Keenans: some Rule 82 factors only justify reductions; conduct did not amount to bad faith during litigation; full fees would function as punitive damages | Court: affirmed full fees. Trial court permissibly used factors (complexity, reasonableness of rates/hours, staffing, merits of positions) to enhance to 75% and found bad-faith litigation conduct during the case to justify remaining 25%; fee award not an improper substitute for punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Burton v. Fountainhead Dev., Inc., 393 P.3d 387 (Alaska 2017) (compensatory damages amount reviewed for clear error)
- Pluid v. B.K., 948 P.2d 981 (Alaska 1997) (factfinder’s reasonable estimation of damages will be upheld)
- Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Campbell, 691 P.2d 1042 (Alaska 1984) (loss-of-use damages recoverable even without replacement or actual financial loss)
- Burgess Constr. Co. v. Hancock, 514 P.2d 236 (Alaska 1973) (rental value as permissible standard for loss-of-use damages)
- City of Seward v. Afognak Logging, 31 P.3d 780 (Alaska 2001) (plaintiff must prove existence of damage but amount need not be mathematically precise)
- Ware v. Ware, 161 P.3d 1188 (Alaska 2007) (Rule 82 enhancements may be supported by reasonableness of fees and hours)
- Crittell v. Bingo, 83 P.3d 532 (Alaska 2004) (full fee awards against bad-faith litigants are permissible and not punitive-damages substitutes)
- Cole v. Bartels, 4 P.3d 956 (Alaska 2000) (complexity plus unreasonable positions can justify enhanced fee award)
- Garrison v. Dixon, 19 P.3d 1229 (Alaska 2001) (trial court best positioned to determine bad-faith litigation conduct)
- Reid v. Williams, 964 P.2d 453 (Alaska 1998) (trial court may consider excessively litigious or bad-faith conduct when awarding fees)