Opinion ID: 2499652
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Smith's Claim Is Barred By Any Applicable Statute Of Limitations.

Text: The superior court characterized Smith's claim as one of inverse condemnation of real property by the State, governed by the ten-year statute of limitations for recovery of real property found in AS 09.10.030(a). The superior court found that Smith's claim accrued when the State took title to Smith's sawmill site. Because that alleged taking occurred more than ten years before Smith brought this action, the superior court determined that the action was time-barred. [8] On appeal, Smith argues that there is no statute of limitations on constitutional claims and that AS 09.10.030(a), as state law, cannot trump the state and federal constitutions. But Alaska's statutes of limitations do apply to constitutional claims generally and to Smith's claim in particular. All civil claims are governed by statutes of limitations. Alaska Statute 09.10.010 provides that [a] person may not commence a civil action except within the periods described in this chapter after the cause of action has accrued, except when, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute. There is no exception for constitutional claims. [9] We have held specifically that certain statutes of limitations apply to claims brought under the takings clauses of the Alaska Constitution. [10] Smith's claim is not exempt from the limitations prescribed by law. The superior court characterized Smith's claim as one of inverse condemnation falling under the ten-year statute of limitations found in AS 09.10.030(a). [11] Regardless of which statute of limitations best applies, however, Smith's claim accrued at the latest in 1983 when the State conveyed the land27 years before Smith brought this action. Thus any conceivably applicable statute of limitations has long since expired. [12] Smith argues in his reply brief that the statute of limitations should be tolled under the continuing violations doctrine. That doctrine allows plaintiffs to establish an ongoing tort through incidents that occurred before the statute of limitations period and that continued into the limitations period. [13] But where a plaintiff's allegations of harm focus on the initial actions taken by defendants, not on a continuing course of conduct, we will not find a continuing violation. [14] The doctrine applies not to an initial violation that causes alleged permanent harm, but instead to an ongoing series of incidents. Smith does not allege continuing bad acts by the State. He recognizes that the land involved now serves an important public purpose and he supports this current use. The claimed wrongdoing is the State's allegedly fraudulent selection of the land in 1979 and its transfer of the land to the Cooper Landing Community Club in 1983. Because no alleged violation has occurred since 1983, there is no continuing violation here. [15] As the Sixth Circuit has noted, to hold that a taking is continuous until it is reversed would mean that all takings would constitute `continuing violations,' tolling the statute of limitations and [t]here would effectively be no statute of limitations in takings cases. [16] Because Smith's case is barred by any applicable statute of limitations and the continuing violations doctrine does not apply, we affirm the superior court's dismissal of Smith's claim.