Thomas Taffe and Devony Lehner v. First National Bank of Alaska, 450 P.3d 239

Taffe and Lehner obtained loans from First National Bank of Alaska to develop a planned community; a 2008 loan was secured by a deed of trust covering subdivided and remaining (unsubdivided) tracts.
Plaintiffs allege the bank had represented it would release the unsubdivided tracts after platting (as it had done earlier) but did not, and that the 2008 deed of trust and later extensions contradicted those promises.
Disputes arose in 2009–2010 when plaintiffs sought to sell tracts and negotiated releases and when they executed a February 2010 change-in-terms that left the unsubdivided tracts encumbered.
Bank foreclosed in April 2013; plaintiffs sued in November 2013 alleging fraud (including fraud in the inducement/fraud in the execution) and sought declaratory relief and damages.
After discovery, the superior court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing on statutes-of-limitations issues, found plaintiffs had inquiry notice by February 2010, entered judgment for the bank, and awarded attorney’s fees (~$54,000) under Alaska R. Civ. P. 82 and costs under Rule 79.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of pretrial evidentiary hearing and due process	Court erred by resolving facts pretrial, limiting hearing, acting as factfinder and denying jury	Courts routinely hold pretrial SOL hearings; judge must resolve accrual facts	Hearing proper; no due process or jury-right violation; judge may find facts on SOL issues
Accrual/inquiry date for fraud claims	Injury occurred when foreclosure threatened in Nov 2012, so suit timely	Injury/inquiry notice arose earlier (2009–Feb 2010) when title was clouded and sales required bank releases	Accrual/inquiry no later than Feb 2010; statutes of limitations bar plaintiffs’ fraud claims
Need for exact accrual date and equitable tolling	Court should identify exact injury date; plaintiffs’ inquiries tolled the SOL via estoppel	No concealment or misrepresentation to withhold claim; inquiries began in 2009 and put plaintiffs on notice	Exact date not required; court correctly found inquiry notice by Feb 2010 and rejected equitable estoppel/tolling
Denial of declaratory relief & attorney’s fees award	Court abused discretion denying declaratory relief and awarding fees	Declaratory relief discretionary; prevailing party entitled to fees/costs under Rule 82/79	Denial of declaratory relief not an abuse of discretion; attorney’s fees award affirmed under Rule 82

Brooks Range Petroleum Corp. v. Shearer, 425 P.3d 65 (Alaska 2018) (explains when tortious misrepresentation causes appreciable injury and accrual principles)
Reasner v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 394 P.3d 610 (Alaska 2017) (applies discovery rule and supports pretrial SOL evidentiary hearings)
Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335 (Alaska 2005) (endorses pretrial evidentiary hearings to resolve SOL factual disputes)
Jarvill v. Porky’s Equip., Inc., 189 P.3d 335 (Alaska 2008) (discusses accrual as date plaintiff incurs injury for SOL purposes)
Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264 (Alaska 2013) (addresses constitutional concerns and jury right in SOL evidentiary hearings)