Opinion ID: 2570344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court's Grant of Summary Judgment in Erikson's Favor on the Statute of Limitations Issue, if Error, Was Harmless.

Text: Rockstad argues that the superior court erred in denying his unopposed motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations issue. Rockstad moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including the statute of limitations, but Erikson's opposition did not address the statute of limitations issue. The superior court's order appeared to grant the motion in favor of Erikson, noting that Rockstad's acknowledgment of debt revived/extended the limitations period. Rockstad moved for reconsideration, and the superior court clarified the effect of the order, stating that the undisputed facts may support a finding that the statute of limitations defense is inapplicable as a matter of law. The court then allowed Rockstad and Erikson to submit further briefing on the matter, and ultimately granted partial summary judgment on this issue to Erikson. Even though Rockstad's motion for summary judgment was initially unopposed, the superior court was not required to grant it. We have stated that a movant does not have a right to summary judgment merely because the non-moving party fails to respond. [16] Civil Rule 56(e) provides that where the non-moving party fails to offer an affidavit setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, a court shall enter summary judgment against that party if appropriate. We have noted that [t]his language indicates that the superior court retains some degree of discretion in deciding whether to grant summary judgment in cases where there is no response to the filing of the summary judgment motion. [17] In sum, the superior court is not required to grant summary judgment even where the motion is unopposed. Where, as here, the record appeared to show that summary judgment for the moving party was not appropriate, the superior court properly declined to grant summary judgment to that party. We cannot agree with Rockstad's claim that the court was required to grant the motion in his favor.
Rockstad renews several arguments he made to the superior court as to why summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of Erikson. First, he argues that Alaska's six-year time limit for bringing actions on contractual obligations runs from the date of the last payment toward the obligation, and had lapsed between Rockstad's last payment to Erikson, which he states was no later than the end of 1993, and the date Erikson filed his lawsuit, February 28, 2000. Second, he argues that the offset was invalid because (1) he was duped into signing the offset by Erikson's fraudulent behavior; (2) he had no authority to forgive a debt owed only to Rockstad Realty Co., which is a separate entity; and (3) neither he nor Rockstad Realty Co. was entitled to any commission from Erikson in the first place. Therefore, according to Rockstad, the offset should not count as a payment to Erikson that renewed the statutory time limit for bringing suit. Rockstad argues that by swearing to these three points in an affidavit, he raised a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment in Erikson's favor. However, we need not reach any of these arguments because Rockstad introduced evidence at trial showing that he had made a payment to Erikson in 1994, thereby reviving the debt for statute of limitations purposes. Rockstad's trial exhibits L and L-1 consisted of pages from his dayplanner listing payments to Erikson and a summary of these payments, and Rockstad offered the exhibits as proof that he made a March 31, 1994 payment to Erikson as part of his obligation on the Note. This payment moots Rockstad's statute of limitations argument because even assuming that the six-year statute of limitations applies, Erikson filed suit before the limitations period ran out. As Rockstad's own evidence shows that Erikson's action was timely filed, we hold that even if Rockstad raised a triable fact issue as to the offset, any error in granting summary judgment on that issue was harmless. [18] Accordingly, the judgment and accompanying jury verdict in Erikson's favor must stand.