Raymond Dapo v. State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services and Taun Lucas
509 P.3d 376
Alaska2022Background
- Plaintiff Raymond Dapo alleges sexual abuse by his adoptive mother Taun Lucas when he was a minor; Lucas denied the allegation and counter-alleged assault.
- Dapo agreed to release Lucas from liability in exchange for Lucas filing a third-party equitable apportionment claim against the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) and assigning that apportionment claim to Dapo; Lucas filed the third-party claim and executed the assignment.
- OCS moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that equitable apportionment claims are non-assignable and that the statute of repose barred the claim; the state appellate process produced prior rulings (Dapo I and Dapo II) addressing the statute of repose but not the assignment issue.
- On remand the superior court declared the assignment void as against public policy, invalidated the agreement between Dapo and Lucas, dismissed Lucas’s apportionment claim with prejudice, and awarded attorney’s fees to OCS.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed invalidation of the assignment (holding equitable apportionment claims are not assignable because a defendant possesses nothing in the claim that can be conveyed), but vacated the dismissal with prejudice and the fee award and remanded to give Lucas a reasonable opportunity to decide whether to pursue the claim herself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dapo) | Defendant's Argument (OCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the assignment | OCS lacks standing because assignment does not change OCS’s direct liability | OCS has a substantial stake because it became a party only because of the assignment | OCS has standing to challenge the assignment |
| Scope of prior remand / law of the case | Dapo II precluded relitigation of assignment | Dapo II did not address assignment; remand permitted further proceedings | Law of the case/mandate did not bar OCS’s challenge |
| Assignability of third-party equitable apportionment claims | Assignment of apportionment claim is permissible like other assignable claims (contribution, indemnity) | Equitable apportionment arises from defendant’s legal status and gives assignee nothing to recover — thus non-assignable | Equitable apportionment claims are not assignable; assignment invalidated |
| Dismissal with prejudice & attorney’s fees | Dismissal and fees against Dapo were proper given invalid assignment | Once assignment invalidated, Lucas’s underlying claim remains potentially viable; dismissal with prejudice and fees were premature | Dismissal with prejudice and fee award vacated; remand to allow Lucas reasonable time to decide whether to pursue claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services, 454 P.3d 171 (Alaska 2019) (prior appeal addressing statute of repose and remand)
- Alaska Gen. Alarm, Inc. v. Grinnell, 1 P.3d 98 (Alaska 2000) (describing equitable apportionment procedure)
- Pagenkopf v. Chatham Elec., Inc., 165 P.3d 634 (Alaska 2007) (apportionment and third-party judgment mechanics)
- Deal v. Kearney, 851 P.2d 1353 (Alaska 1993) (examples of assignable claims such as subrogation/contribution)
- PADRM Gold Mine, LLC v. Perkumpulan Inv. Crisis Ctr. Dressel - WBG, 498 P.3d 1073 (Alaska 2021) (general rule that causes of action may be assignable)
- Zerbetz v. Alaska Energy Ctr., 708 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1985) (severability and enforceability of agreements)
- Tenala, Ltd. v. Fowler, 921 P.2d 1114 (Alaska 1996) (involuntary dismissal with prejudice is a harsh sanction)