Markham v. Kodiak Island Borough Bd. of Equal., 441 P.3d 943

Background

Gerald Markham (over 65) applied for Kodiak Island Borough senior property tax exemption for 2013 and 2014; assessor denied based on prolonged absences from Alaska and PFD-based eligibility criteria.
Borough ordinance incorporated Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) residency/absence rules; applicants absent during the qualifying year must show absences fall within statutory "allowable" categories.
Markham submitted questionnaires claiming various allowable reasons but refused to provide corroborating documentation; appeals to the Borough Board of Equalization were heard by his representatives and the denials were affirmed.
Markham appealed the 2013 denial to superior court; after venue change and multiple missed briefing deadlines, the superior court dismissed the 2013 appeal for failure to prosecute and awarded partial attorney’s fees; Markham appealed that dismissal and the fees award.
Markham separately appealed the 2014 denial to superior court; the court denied the appeal on the merits, finding the ordinance constitutional and the Board’s procedures adequate; Markham appealed.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the 2013 dismissal and the 2014 denial on the merits, but vacated the superior court’s award of attorney’s fees and remanded for findings about AS 09.60.010(c) (constitutional-litigant fee protection).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the superior court abuse its discretion by dismissing the 2013 appeal for failure to prosecute?	Markham (an attorney) argued court should have afforded pro se-like leniency and advised him of errors.	Court/Board: Markham is an experienced attorney, was given more notice/extensions than required, and failed to comply with rules.	No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed.
Do KIBC eligibility requirements (PFD criteria) violate equal protection?	Markham: owning/occupying home and other indicia of residency entitle him to exemption despite absences.	Borough: exemption is an economic benefit like the PFD; residency/physical-presence rules rationally ensure benefits go to bona fide Alaska residents.	No equal protection violation; minimal scrutiny satisfied.
Do the eligibility rules violate privileges/immunities or the right to travel?	Markham: rules deter interstate travel or burden right to travel.	Borough: any burden is minimal and justified to prevent subsidy to nonresidents; parallels PFD rulings.	No violation; infringement is small and not a deterrent.
Did the Board violate privacy or due process by requesting documentation, denying telephonic appearance, or excluding late documents?	Markham: requesting medical/supporting info invades privacy; denial to appear by phone and exclusion of late materials violated process.	Borough/Board: applicant bears burden to prove eligibility; requested corroboration is minimal and protected by confidentiality rules; Board rules permit representative and discretion on records and appearance.	No privacy or due process violations; Board acted within authority and provided adequate hearing opportunities.

Key Cases Cited

Heller v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 314 P.3d 69 (Alaska 2013) (upholding PFD residency/physical-presence rules and reasoning that PFD is a portable cash benefit limited to bona fide residents)
Church v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 973 P.2d 1125 (Alaska 1999) (PFD eligibility rules impose only a small burden on the right to travel and do not deter interstate migration)
Cowitz v. Alaska Workers' Compensation Bd., 721 P.2d 635 (Alaska 1986) (procedural rules on dismissal for failure to prosecute and interplay of appellate dismissal provisions)
Collins v. Arctic Builders, 957 P.2d 980 (Alaska 1998) (standards on advising pro se litigants and responsibility to file briefs)
Brodigan v. Alaska Dep't of Revenue, 900 P.2d 728 (Alaska 1995) (discussion of residency requirements for economic benefits)
Stanek v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 81 P.3d 268 (Alaska 2003) (property tax exemption distinctions between primary residences and second homes)