Opinion ID: 2631823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: moa's cross-appeal

Text: We review the interpretation of Alaska Civil Rules governing the award of costs and attorney's fees de novo, and will adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy. [49]
After the court granted complete summary judgment to the MOA, the MOA requested an award of costs under Alaska Civil Rule 79 and an award of attorney's fees under Civil Rule 82. [50] Reasoning that Alaska Civil Rule 72 governed inverse condemnation proceedings, the trial court denied both applications. The MOA argues that Rule 72 supersedes Rules 79 and 82 only when the condemnor initiates condemnation actions, but does not prohibit the MOA from recovering costs and attorney's fees when a landowner asserts an unsuccessful inverse condemnation claim. Rules 79 and 82, respectively, provide that costs and attorney's fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party in a civil case, except as otherwise provided by law. Rule 72 creates a narrow exception in those cases involving the condemnation of property under the power of eminent domain.... [51] It permits an award of attorney's fees to landowners who are named as defendants in eminent domain actions initiated by the government, based upon the constitutional requirement of just compensation, where a taking of private property has occurred. [52] We have not applied Rule 72 in an action initiated by a landowner in which it is determined that there has been no inverse condemnation or taking. Cases cited by the MOA demonstrate that this court has been willing to award attorney's fees when no taking has been found. In Stewart v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, we explained: [t]he mere fact that a party brings an inverse condemnation action does not mean that there has been a taking. If a court dismissed an inverse condemnation complaint because there was no taking, the purported condemnor would be entitled to attorney's fees. [53] We followed a similar approach in Weidner v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, where the trial court found no taking and awarded the state its costs and attorney's fees. [54] We affirmed in all respects, although the landowner there did not argue on appeal that Rule 72(k) controlled. We conclude that because the landowners asserted an unsuccessful inverse condemnation claim, Rule 72 does not supersede Rules 79 and 82 and that those rules permit the MOA to recover costs and attorney's fees here. As the prevailing party, the MOA is entitled to recover partial fees under Rule 82 and costs under Rule 79.