Opinion ID: 1193732
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Debra's tort suit

Text: During discovery conducted for her Rule 60(b) motion, Debra learned that Ken had acquired all the quota shares by misrepresenting critical facts to the NMFS. Ken conceded that he had misrepresented his ownership of the F/V Tamarack to the NMFS, but claimed it was an innocent mistake, not a willful misrepresentation. In June 1996 Debra commenced a new action by filing a complaint against Ken based on Ken's misrepresentation. She sought an order requiring Ken to transfer to Debra one-half of his quota shares and IFQs for the current year and to disgorge profits gained by using Debra's quota shares and IFQs. She also sought punitive damages and attorney's fees. Although the complaint alleged that Ken had wrongfully converted fifty percent of the quota shares and IFQs, the parties and the court thereafter referred to Debra's action as one for replevin. We refer to it as her tort action or tort suit. After the parties stipulated to dismissal of Debra's claims for Ken's use of the IFQs and quota shares, Ken moved for summary judgment. Superior Court Judge Thomas M. Jahnke dismissed the tort action holding that Debra had impermissibly split her causes of action, that the matter was moot, and that the second claim was merged with the dissolution case, and barred by the decision in the dissolution case. The court awarded Ken attorney's fees and costs. Debra appeals these rulings in Case No. S-7965.