Opinion ID: 1239050
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: LDAs and land transferred to other state agencies

Text: The superior court estimated that the litigation risk that the trust will recover land set aside by the legislature for other uses since 1978 would be high. The court based this conclusion on its determination that, in accord with State v. University of Alaska, 624 P.2d 807 (Alaska 1981), these lands would probably be deemed sold under Weiss. Weiss argues that the term sold in Weiss does not refer to lands still held by the State. In University of Alaska, we considered a 1929 grant of 100,000 acres by the federal government to the Territory of Alaska for the exclusive use and benefit of the University of Alaska. 624 P.2d at 810-11. The State, without paying compensation, placed about 5,000 acres of the land into Chugach State Park. Id. at 809-10. We concluded that the State breached the trust by redesignating the land, but declined to invalidate the State's action. Id. at 814-15. Instead, we held that the State must compensate the university for the land by paying it fair market value or by agreeing to a land exchange. Id. at 816. In Weiss, we distinguished University of Alaska on the grounds that the 1978 redesignation legislation did not involve a disposition of a portion of trust lands for a specific use and therefore could not support an inference of legislative intent to pay for the trust land. Weiss, 706 P.2d at 684. However, unlike the 1978 redesignation legislation, the State's transfer of land to legislatively designated areas or for the use of state agencies is a disposition of ... trust lands for a specific use. Id. The State's action with respect to such land is thus similar to the action permitted under University of Alaska. The superior court therefore reasonably concluded that, under that case, the plaintiffs would face a high risk of not recovering this land through further litigation.