Opinion ID: 2464541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vesting The Easement In A Government Agency

Text: Finally, Price argues that the superior court erred by failing to identify a State agency or political subdivision as the holder of the easement under AS 09.45.052(d). Whether the superior court was required to do so is a question of law, which we review de novo. [48] Alaska Statute 09.45.052(d) provides in relevant part: [T]he uninterrupted adverse notorious use. . . of private land for . . . public access purposes . . . by the public, . . . for a period of 10 years or more, vests an appropriate interest in that land in the state or a political subdivision of the state. This subsection does not limit or expand the rights of a state or political subdivision under adverse possession or prescription as the law existed on July 17, 2003. This section was added to AS 09.45.052 in July 2003. [49] The easement across Price's land was perfected by the time he put up No Trespassing signs in 1998. [50] Alaska Statute 09.45.052(d) did not exist at the time this public easement was perfected and the legislature did not instruct that this statute should be applied retrospectively. [51] Therefore, the superior court did not err by not identifying a State or political subdivision to hold the interest in the easement.