Opinion ID: 2448997
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It was error to apply the 2003 version of AS 09.10.030 to the Cowans' claim.

Text: The Cowans argue that it was error to apply the 2003 version of AS 09.10.030 to their adverse possession claim because the Cowans were vested with title to the disputed land well before the statute was changed, the legislative history indicates that the changes were not intended to be applied to vested adverse possession rights, and the Legislature did not indicate that the law changing AS 09.10.030 was retrospective. Alaska Statute 01.10.090 states that [n]o statute is retrospective unless expressly declared therein. The 2003 amendments to AS 09.10.030 specifically stated that the amended version applie[d] to actions that have not been barred before [July 18, 2003] by AS 09.10.030 as it read before [July 18, 2003]. [25] Thus, the changes to AS.09.10.030 were not intended to be retrospective. We have held that [a] statute will be considered [retrospective] insofar as it gives to pre-enactment conduct a different legal effect from that which it would have had without the passage of the statute. [26] The Cowans claim that they adversely possessed the disputed land for more than ten years before 1980. Because title automatically vests in an adverse possessor at the end of the statutory period, [27] the true owner's action to recover the property would thus have been barred by 1980 under former AS 09.10.030 if the Cowans in fact perfected their adverse possession claims by 1980. Applying the amended statute to the Cowans' case would therefore give the Cowans' pre-2003 conduct a different legal effect, effectively stripping them of their title. Because the 2003 revision to AS 09.10.030 was not intended to be retrospective, and applying it to this case would produce retrospective results, it was error to apply the revised statute to the Cowans' adverse possession claim.