Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C.
2013 Alas. LEXIS 11
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Leisnoi, an Alaska Native corporation, hired Merdes & Merdes under a contingency fee to represent it against Stratman over ANCSA lands.
- Arbitration Panel held Merdes get a 30% security interest in land value, awarded $721,000 in fees plus interest, but not ownership in land; Merdes awarded additional $55,000 in fees to other attorneys.
- 1995 Superior Court judgment confirmed the Arbitration Panel award and Merdes’ fees; Leisnoi made several installment payments and then stopped in 2002 due to financial strain and ongoing Stratman litigation.
- Stratman litigation ended in Leisnoi’s favor in 2008; Merdes sought a writ of execution in 2009, which Leisnoi opposed on grounds of timeliness and illegality under ANCSA.
- Leisnoi filed Civil Rule 60(b) motions in 2010 arguing the judgment violated ANCSA and was void or voidable; the superior court denied relief and granted execution.
- On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the writ of execution but affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief; Merdes could pursue quantum meruit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of appeal by payment | Leisnoi paid under protest; payment was involuntary and did not waive appeal. | Payment indicated compromise or settlement and barred review. | Payment was involuntary; no waiver of the right to appeal. |
| ANCSA contingency fee prohibition and judgment | Arbitration award and 1995 judgment violated 48 U.S.C. § 1621(a). | ANCSA does not strip court jurisdiction to enforce reasonable fees; award was not void. | Arbitration award and 1995 judgment violated § 1621(a); judgment was voidable, not void. |
| Writ of execution under ANCSA | Issuance of writ to enforce an illegal judgment violated § 1621(a). | Writ was within court’s execution powers and just enforcement. | 2010 writ of execution violated § 1621(a); order reversed. |
| Civil Rule 60(b) relief | Rule 60(b)(4)/(5)/(6) relief warranted due to void/voidable judgment and changed equities. | Relief not warranted; judgment not void and equities do not support relief. | No relief under Rule 60(b)(4), (5), or (6); relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stratman v. Leisnoi, Inc., 969 P.2d 1139 (Alaska 1998) (ANCSA status and related litigation context)
- Graddick v. Newman, 453 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1981) (voidness and jurisdiction concepts in Rule 60(b)(4))
- Stone v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (payment of judgment and right to appeal)
- Imperial Body Works, Inc. v. Nat'l Claims Serv., Inc., 279 S.E.2d 534 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981) (illegality and enforcement implications)
- Pavone v. Pavone, 860 P.2d 1228 (Alaska 1993) (Rule 60(b) viability and final judgments)
- Kenai Peninsula Borough v. English Bay Village Corp., 781 P.2d 6 (Alaska 1989) (no usurpation of power where default judgment issued incorrectly)
- United States v. Berenguer, 821 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1987) (jurisdiction and void judgments boundaries)
- Stratman v. Leisnoi, Inc., 969 P.2d 1139 (Alaska 1998), 969 P.2d 1139 (Alaska 1998) (context of ANCSA lands and litigation posture)