Opinion ID: 1318519
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wadke's Assignment of the Cause of Action to Weissler

Text: MEA argues that Weissler should not recover on the claims of his ex-wife Wadke because those claims were dismissed with prejudice prior to trial. Wadke's pretrial affidavit (first affidavit) stated: I no longer desire to participate as a plaintiff in this matter and knowingly choose to forgo (sic) any possible recovery for past and/or future damages as a result of defendant's actions. The court issued an order prepared by MEA that stated: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Mary T. Wadke is dropped as a party plaintiff in this matter with leave to plaintiff Mark D. Weissler to serve and file an amended complaint. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that any and all claims of Mary T. Wadke against plaintiff (sic) are hereby dismissed with prejudice. [13] MEA contends that Wadke's first affidavit and the subsequent order dismissing her as a plaintiff preclude Weissler from recovering for the total amount of damages to the property. Weissler maintained in his trial brief and in his testimony that Wadke had assigned her interests in the lawsuit to him. Because of the conflict on this issue throughout the trial, Judge Cutler permitted post trial briefing. As part of that briefing Weissler submitted an affidavit signed by Wadke in Michigan (second affidavit). In this affidavit she stated she had orally assigned her interest in the cause of action prior to her dismissal as a party plaintiff. Weissler argues that the first affidavit and the dismissal order are ambiguous. Interpreting the dismissal order to preclude the preassigned interest in the property would, in Weissler's opinion, be neither reasonable, effective, nor in harmony with the facts and law of the case. In its objection to the trial court's consideration of Wadke's second affidavit, MEA contended that admission of the document deprived it of its right to cross-examine Wadke and claimed that such admission violated the hearsay rule. Weissler argued that admission of the document was permissible under Alaska Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) [14] or alternatively Alaska Rule of Evidence 803(23). [15] Judge Cutler, after the post trial briefing, issued an order allowing Wadke's affidavit to be entered as evidence pursuant to Alaska Rules of Evidence 803(23) and 804(b)(5). She found that the original affidavit in support of the motion to dismiss may literally provide support for MEA's contention that all Wadke's claims were dismissed with prejudice. Nevertheless, Judge Cutler stated that it appears to have been drafted by counsel unwittingly as far as the import which [MEA] now attaches to it. She continued: The court finds that ruling in favor of defendant would merely allow the ambiguities and peculiarities of legal drafting to foster results contrary to the parties' obvious intent. On appeal the parties agree that [j]udgments are to be given that interpretation which will render them reasonable, effective, conclusive and in harmony with the facts and law of the case. Pennington v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 520 P.2d 96, 97 (Alaska 1974) (Supreme Court reversed dismissal with prejudice of garnishment proceeding because the judgment of dismissal is ambiguous. Id. ). MEA relies on a policy favoring finality of judgments in arguing that the dismissal with prejudice should preclude admission of further evidence of assignment. See, e.g., Pearson v. Bachner, 503 P.2d 1401, 1402 (Alaska 1972) (rejecting untimely Rule 60(b)(6) motion for prejudgment interest filed two and a half years after judgment). Weissler maintained throughout the suit that he was claiming damage for the property as a whole and that Wadke had assigned her interests to him. His attorney signed an affidavit stating that he told MEA's counsel during settlement negotiations that MEA's offers were unsatisfactory because Weissler sought recovery on the total damage to the property. On the record taken as a whole we agree with Weissler and Judge Cutler. Judge Cutler had the opportunity to observe the entire trial and judge the witnesses' demeanor and credibility. She determined that Wadke assigned her interests to Weissler and that the parties intended merely to dismiss Wadke as a coplaintiff. We do not believe that Judge Cutler's determination was clearly erroneous. [16] Nor was her admission of the second affidavit in error. [17]