Opinion ID: 1133582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Superior Court Had Jurisdiction to Decide this Case.

Text: Noey argues on appeal that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute because jurisdiction was vested in the supreme court. The argument presents a legal question, which is subject to de novo review. [41] As we have already mentioned, the current fee dispute arose from Bledsoe's representation of Noey in Noey v. Cannone. Bledsoe had also represented Noey in another civil action, Noey v. DEC. [42] Noey v. DEC was pending on appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court when the current interpleader action was tried in the superior court. In his post-trial motion in the interpleader action, Noey suggested that Bledsoe had submitted overlapping bills in DEC and Cannone. Noey further asserted that he needed more information to determine whether any of the fees Bledsoe claimed in Cannone were for work performed in DEC, and he reserved the right to seek a stay of the interpleader action if he determined that the DEC appeal directly impacts Mr. Bledsoe's contract. On appeal, Noey argues that Bledsoe breached his duty of candor in failing to apprise the trial court of the DEC matter then pending on appeal and that, because related matters were pending before the supreme court, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear the contract issue presented in the interpleader action. These claims are based on wholly unsubstantiated allegations. At trial, Noey did not challenge the reasonableness of Bledsoe's fees or the quality of his work. Nor did he raise his theory that Bledsoe's billings in Cannone actually might be for work performed in DEC. Given Noey's trial theory, there were no material facts with respect to DEC for Bledsoe to disclose, and there is no record evidence of overlapping billings. Moreover, even if all facts were as Noey alleged, the trial court would not have been deprived of jurisdiction to hear the contract dispute in this case. Alaska Appellate Rule 203 divests trial courts of jurisdiction over proceedings on appeal ... in the appellate court[.] Because this interpleader action was not the proceeding on appeal in DEC, the appeal in DEC could have had no effect on the superior court's jurisdiction to hear the interpleader trial, even if DEC conceivably might have impacted this case.