Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc.
305 P.3d 264
Alaska2013Background
- Windels own W1, W2, W3 near Wasilla; Davis Road crosses W1 and W2 for access.
- Davis Road easement was created via a 1974 plat waiver with a 50‑ft width later handwritten on the re‑recorded document; Mrs. Davis did not sign the re‑recorded version.
- Carnahan upgraded Davis Road under subdivision conditions, prompting Windels to challenge the easement’s width and validity.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment in Carnahan’s favor on the 50‑ft easement issue; Windels appealed.
- Windels later sued title companies (Mat‑Su Title and Security Union) alleging misrepresentation and malpractice regarding easement annotations; those claims were dismissed.
- Settlement and nuisance abatement proceedings followed, culminating in a separate nuisance remedy order and a later attorney’s fees dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 50-foot width of the Davis Road easement valid over W1? | Windels contend the original: (a) re-recorded width was unacknowledged; (b) Mrs. Davis’s signature was missing and cannot cure width. | Carnahan and the title defendants argue the easement is valid and adequately recorded, with existence of width supported by extrinsic evidence. | Yes; 50-foot easement valid across W1. |
| Does AS 34.25.010 cure defective acknowledgments to validate the easement? | AS 34.25.010 cannot cure an unacknowledged re‑recording to create a 50‑ft easement. | The statute can cure defective acknowledgments; the original instrument was ratified and width inferred as 50 feet. | Statute cannot cure unacknowledged re-recording, but ratification preserves 50‑ft width. |
| What is the governing duty of the title insurers regarding the easement's validity? | Windels claim insurers owe duties beyond mere disclosure; annotations could misrepresent or conceal validity. | Insurers’ duty is to disclose easement existence, not to judge legal validity; coverage exclusions apply. | Windels’ claims against title insurers fail; insurers fulfilled duties. |
| Who is the prevailing party on attorney’s fees and under which rule do fees apply? | Windels sought prevailing party status and argued Rule 68 should apply to the overall litigation; settlement framing matters. | Carnahan argued he beat his Rule 68 offer or, at least, prevailed on the principal issue; bifurcation complicates analysis. | Remand for regrouping findings on Rule 68 applicability and prevailing party status; Rule 82 analysis remains possible on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Handle Construction Co. v. Norcon, Inc., 264 P.3d 367 (Alaska 2011) (acknowledgment and contract interpretation standards)
- Winterrowd v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. Of Motor Vehicles, 288 P.3d 446 (Alaska 2012) (evidence and construction of ambiguous documents)
- Van Sickle v. McGraw, 134 P.3d 388 (Alaska 2006) (interpretation of instruments and extrinsic evidence)
- Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 204 P.3d 1001 (Alaska 2009) (misrepresentation and professional malpractice standards)
- Mackie v. Chizmar, 965 P.2d 1202 (Alaska 1998) (Rule 68 offer of judgment and bifurcation considerations)
- Progressive Corp. v. Peter ex rel. Peter, 195 P.3d 1083 (Alaska 2008) (prevailing party and attorney’s fees framework)
- Alaska Cont’l Bank v. Anchorage Commercial Land Assocs., 781 P.2d 562 (Alaska 1989) (clean hands/equitable relief and due diligence context)
- Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 204 P.3d 1001 (Alaska 2009) (misrepresentation and professional malpractice standards)