Opinion ID: 2626405
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The common law supports an expansive reading of the statute.

Text: Especially when statutory language and legislative history are ambiguous, we look to the common law [48] as a useful tool to discern legislative intent and to interpret statutes. The common law . . . furnishes one of the most reliable backgrounds upon which analysis of the objects and purposes of a statute can be determined. [49] By statute dating back to territorial days, Alaska has adopted the common law (where not inconsistent with federal or state constitutions or with state statutes) as the rule of decision in this state. [50] We presume that the legislature is aware of the common law when enacting statutes. [51] Moreover, the common law is an especially important tool when a statute attempts to restate the common law. [52] We have stated that [s]tatutes which establish rights that are in derogation of common law are to be construed in a manner that effects the least change possible in common law. [53] The equity of redemption, as we have discussed, is analogous to the right of cure granted by AS 34.20.070(b). If a lienholder is able to redeem the property, then that person should also be able to cure a default. As Young argues in her brief, cure is a more liberal right than the right of redemption, indicating that anyone entitled to redeem should also have the right to cure. We have characterized cure as a type of redemption: If the party who executes the deed of trust defaults the obligation, the party nonetheless has a right of redemption. In other words, the party has the opportunity to cure the default at any time before a nonjudicial sale. [54] Therefore, just as the junior lienholder has the right to redeem a mortgage, we determine that the junior lienholder also possesses the right to cure default on a deed of trust before the foreclosure sale. Our conclusion is further buttressed by the twin principles that redemption statutes should be construed liberally [55] and that equity abhors a forfeiture. [56] As noted above, [57] we share the view expressed by the Oregon Supreme Court that the right of equitable redemption on a deed of trust extends beyond the obligor to every other person who has an interest in, or legal or equitable lien upon, the mortgaged premises. [58] Thus the right of cure granted by AS 34.20.070(b) should extend to those persons. However, this equitable right would not extend to mere occupants or possessors lacking any claim to the property. [59] Thus, if Young wishes to invoke AS 34.20.070(b) she must do so on her claim of interest in the property rather than her occupancy of it.