Jackinsky v. Jackinsky
| Decision Date | 12 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S-6081,S-6081 |
| Parties | Sara L. JACKINSKY, and Timothy Jackinsky, Appellants, v. Edward JACKINSKY, Wade C. Jackinsky, Gary W. Jackinsky, Joann Jackinsky, Benjamin Jackinsky, and Mary S. Jackinsky, Appellees. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
Daniel Westerburg, Homer, for appellants.
Tucker S. Thompson, Soldotna, for appellees Mary S. Jackinsky, Joann Jackinsky, and Benjamin Jackinsky.
Michael Hough, Homer, for appellees Edward Jackinsky and Gary Jackinsky.
Robert Molloy, Kenai, Guardian Ad Litem for appellee Wade Jackinsky.
Before MOORE, C.J., and RABINOWITZ, MATTHEWS, COMPTON, and EASTAUGH, JJ.
1. The question of whether or not the preliminary injunction, which was reinstated by order of Justice Compton on April 13, 1995, should be continued is REMANDED to the Superior Court. The preliminary injunction shall remain in effect pending the Superior Court's determination whether or not to continue the preliminary injunction.
2. The Superior Court may proceed with the hearing concerning the preliminary injunction before the expiration of the ten-day period for filing a petition for rehearing or before this court rules on any petition for rehearing which may be filed.
Entered by direction of the court at Anchorage, Alaska on May 12, 1995.
Sara Jackinsky (Sara) and Timothy Jackinsky (Timothy) sought a declaration that certain shore fishery leases, issued in the individual names of Edward Jackinsky, Benjamin Jackinsky and Joann Jackinsky, be declared to be held in trust for the entire Jackinsky Family. Wade Jackinsky, Gary Jackinsky and Mary Jackinsky later joined the suit as defendants. Sara and Timothy assert that all of the parties are participants in a Family partnership, which holds the leases as assets. Sara and Timothy allege that the leases are held in trust as partnership assets by the titular leaseholders for the benefit of all of the Jackinskys who participated in the fishing partnership. The superior court dismissed Sara and Timothy's suit on a motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Sara and Timothy's suit was barred under the doctrine of res judicata, because the underlying claim in their suit is the same as, and transactionally related to, a claim extinguished by a stipulation to dismiss an earlier suit. We reverse and remand the case for a trial on the merits.
This dispute centers around eight setnet fishing sites located on the east side of Cook Inlet, near the mouth of the Kasilof River. Edward, his wife Wade, and their children, Gary, Joann, Mary Sue, Benjamin, Sara, and Timothy, have continuously fished these sites since 1950. However, the sites have been utilized by the Jackinsky family since 1936.
Prior to 1985 the Jackinsky setnet sites were fished without state shore fishery leases. To protect the sites from encroachment by non-family members, the Jackinskys had the sites surveyed. They submitted lease applications to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1984, pursuant to a shore lease program established by AS 38.05.082 and administered under 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) Chapter 64. The leases were granted in late 1984. The Family had divided the sites into three separate lease areas. The three lease areas were registered in the names of three different family members. 1
Sara and Timothy claim that the leases were placed in the names of particular family members because DNR refused to allow more than one name on each lease. They assert that the Family had attempted to put each lease in more than one person's name, but was prohibited from doing so by DNR. They further allege that the selection of whose names should go on the leases was largely arbitrary. 2
In 1985, following an altercation with the Family, Timothy left Alaska. He offered to sell his lease and entry permit to the other Jackinskys for $125,000. He informed the Family that if they did not purchase the lease from him, he intended to sell it on the open market. The Jackinskys (Edward, Wade, Gary, Sara, Joann, Benjamin and Mary) filed suit against Timothy to enjoin him from selling the lease. They alleged that Timothy, by agreement, held his lease in trust for all the Jackinskys who participated in the fishing partnership. This suit was settled by an order entitled "Stipulation to Dismiss" entered by the superior court. The order included three provisions: (1) Edward and Wade agreed to pay Timothy $50,000 for his interest in certain real property; (2) Timothy retained all his right and title to limited entry setnet permit number S04H62232C; and (3) Timothy transferred to Joann the shore lease which was the subject of the complaint. The order suggests that no consideration was paid for the transfer of the lease to Joann.
The parties appear to agree that until 1991 the Family fished the sites cooperatively, pooling their resources and labor. For example, the operation utilized a collective checking account entitled "E. Jackinsky Fish," from which joint business expenses were paid. Until 1991 those who received full shares of the profits, including non-leaseholders, took business deductions on their income tax returns for proportionate shares of the operation's business expenses for the year. The fishing equipment, including boats, gear, nets, and nearby real property, was used communally.
However, the parties disagree on whether the issuance of the leases to specified family members influenced the manner in which the Family fished the sites and divided the revenues. Sara and Timothy claim that the annual profit distributions in the years following the acquisition of the leases did not depend upon whose name appeared on the leases. They assert that profit distribution was determined by who worked on the sites. Conversely, the Family argues that the majority of profits were split between the named lease holders. They contend that although the factors determining profit distribution were numerous--who showed up in the spring before the season to get the sites ready, who worked during the season, and the effort each contributed--who held the permits was especially important in the apportionment of the revenues.
In 1991 Gary and Edward promulgated "Operational Guidelines" which, for the first time, limited the recipients of the net revenues to the three leaseholders. This distribution plan excluded Sara, which led her to file this suit.
On January 24, 1992, Sara and Timothy filed suit in superior court against their father, Edward, their incapacitated mother, Wade, and their four siblings, Gary, Joann, Benjamin and Mary. Sara and Timothy claimed an interest in (1) the shore lease sites held by Edward, Joann and Benjamin, (2) their limited entry permits, and (3) associated real property and equipment. Sara and Timothy later abandoned their claims to the limited entry permits. They continue to claim interests in the shore fishery leases and the real property and equipment.
Sara and Timothy sought and were granted in part a preliminary injunction. The injunction prohibited the Family from conveying the various components of the setnet operation while the suit was pending. However, the superior court refused to require the Family to permit Sara and Timothy access to the sites during this time. The court held that Sara and Timothy had an adequate remedy at law because they could claim a share of the profits for any seasons lost as a result of the Operational Guidelines.
The court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for Wade. On March 13, 1993, the GAL filed a motion for summary judgment, which the rest of the Family joined. The GAL's principal argument was that under the doctrine of res judicata, the instant suit was barred by the stipulation to dismiss the 1985 suit against Timothy. Sara and Timothy filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment requesting, among other things, a ruling in their favor on the res judicata issue. The parties disagree about the issues which were discharged in the 1985 suit.
The court granted the GAL's motion, ruling that Sara and Timothy's suit was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. In a clarifying order the superior court confirmed that its ruling encompassed all of the claims raised by Sara and Timothy in their amended complaint. Final judgment was entered. The court awarded partial attorneys' fees to the Family. Ordinarily under Alaska Civil Rule 82(b)(2), the Family would have been entitled to 20% of their actual attorneys' fees and expenses. However, they were awarded enhanced attorneys' fees under Rule 82(b)(3). 3 Sara and Timothy appeal both the grant of summary judgment and the award of enhanced attorneys' fees.
"When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, the court must determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment on the law applicable to the established facts." Wright v. State, 824 P.2d 718, 720 (Alaska 1992). The court reviews de novo an order granting summary judgment. Tongass Sport Fishing Ass'n v. State, 866 P.2d 1314, 1317 n. 7 (Alaska 1994). This court may consider any argument ascertainable from the record, even if the superior court did not rule on it, when reviewing the summary judgment order. See Wright, 824 P.2d at 720; Moore v. State, 553 P.2d 8, 21 (Alaska 1976).
Neither the doctrine of res judicata nor the doctrine of collateral estoppel (claim preclusion) bars Sara and Timothy's suit. The superior court relied on Tolstrup v. Miller, 726 P.2d 1304 (Alaska 1986), to dismiss on summary judgment Sara and Timothy's suit, holding that it was barred by res judicata. We disagree.
Res judicata holds that a final judgment will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Wald
...Restatement (Second) of Judgments ? 27 (1982) does not apply with respect to any issue in a subsequent action." Jackinsky v. Jackinsky, 894 P.2d 650, 655 (Alaska 1995). See also F.T. v. State, 862 P.2d 857, 864 n. 13 (Alaska Arizona: "In the case of a judgment entered by confession, consent......
-
Coates v. City of Tacoma
...holding have a similar statute to RCW 7.24.010 that affords declaratory orders the same status as other judgments. Jackinsky v. Jackinsky , 894 P.2d 650, 654-57 (Alaska 1995) ; Aerojet-General Corp. v. American Excess Insurance Co. , 97 Cal. App. 4th 387, 401-03, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 427, (200......
-
Andrew Robinson Intern. v. Hartford Fire Ins.
...judgment context. Many of these courts have cited explicitly to some edition of the Restatement. See, e.g., Jackinsky v. Jackinsky, 894 P.2d 650, 656 (Alaska 1995); Aerojet-Gen. Corp. v. Am. Excess Ins. Co., 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 427, 441-42 (Cal.Ct.App.2002); Eason v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 961 ......
-
Gansen v. Gansen
...the Restatement—namely that issue preclusion, but not claim preclusion, arises from declaratory actions. See, e.g., Jackinsky v. Jackinsky, 894 P.2d 650, 656 (Alaska 1995) ; Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Electro Enters., Inc., 287 Md. 641, 415 A.2d 278, 284–85 (1980) ; Radkay v. Co......