Opinion
Supreme Court No. S-12363.
July 5, 2007.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First Judicial District, Sitka, Larry C. Zervos, Judge, Superior Court No. 1SI-03-00005 Civil.
James W. McGowan, Sitka, for Appellants.
Robert S. Spitzfaden, Gruening Spitzfaden, APC, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews, Eastaugh, Bryner, and Carpeneti, Justices.
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited for any proposition of law or as an example of the proper resolution of any issue.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Entered pursuant to Alaska Appellate Rule 214.
1. After a bench trial to resolve a quiet title action brought by David and Velma Pazar against Cindy Crooks, Superior Court Judge Larry C. Zervos issued a twenty-seven page decision entitled "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders" on August 6, 2004. In the comprehensive and thoughtful decision, the court concluded that Crooks owed a fiduciary duty to Velma Pazar and that Crooks had breached that duty by arranging for the transfer of the title to property in Sitka from Velma to herself under questionable circumstances. Accordingly, the court held that the deed transferring the property to Crooks should be cancelled. But because Crooks had paid off the mortgage for the disputed property, the court also held that Crooks was entitled to an equitable lien in the amount that she had paid to extinguish the mortgage. The court ordered each party to submit the documents necessary to effectuate these remedies: The Pazars were ordered to prepare and file for the court's signature the documents necessary to effectuate the cancellation of the deed that transferred the property to Crooks, while Crooks was ordered to prepare for the court's signature the documents necessary to establish the lien. The Pazars were ordered to pay the full amount owed plus interest within one year to discharge the lien.
2. In September 2004 the Pazars filed a proposed order and judgment with the court to effectuate cancellation of the deed. The Pazars labeled this order "Final Judgment." The superior court signed the judgment and accompanying order on September 23, 2004. That document made no mention of Crooks's lien.
3. Crooks did not file any documents with the court to establish an equitable lien.
4. In February 2006 Crooks filed a "Motion for Show of Cause" in which she argued that the Pazars should be held in contempt for failing to extinguish the equitable lien in the time ordered by the court. Ruling on the motion in June 2006, the superior court declined to hold the Pazars in contempt. The court reasoned that because Crooks had failed to file the documents necessary to establish the lien, the Pazars could not be held in contempt for failing to extinguish it. The court stated, however, that it would establish a lien if Crooks filed the necessary documents. In July 2006 Crooks filed a notice of lien, which the superior court approved. The Pazars now challenge the propriety of this action.
5. Because, as set out in the next paragraph, a final judgment has not been issued in this case, we will treat the Pazars' appeal as a petition for review under Alaska Appellate Rule 402.
6. Although the September 2004 judgment that canceled the disputed deed was labeled "Final Judgment," we cannot agree with the Pazars that this document represents the final judgment in this case. Courts look to the substance of an order rather than its label when determining whether it represents a final judgment. A final judgment "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." In other words, it "disposes of the whole subject, gives all the relief that was contemplated, provides with reasonable completeness for giving effect to the judgment and leaves nothing to be done in the case save to superintend, ministerially, the execution of the decree." Because the September 2004 judgment failed to create an equitable lien for Crooks, it did not "give all the relief that was contemplated" in the superior court's August 2004 decision and therefore was not a final judgment.
See D.L.M. v. M.W., 941 P.2d 900, 902 (Alaska 1997).
Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027, 1030 (Alaska 1972) (quotations omitted), overruled on other grounds, City Borough of Juneau v. Thibodeau, 595 P.2d 626 (Alaska 1979).
City of Louisa v. Levi, 140 F.2d 512, 514 (6th Cir. 1944).
See id.
7. Because the September 2004 judgment is not a final judgment, the superior court retained jurisdiction over the case through July 2006. Contrary to the Pazars' argument, the passage of time without the issuance of a final judgment did not divest the superior court of the power to enter an order granting relief to Crooks.
See Ward v. Lupinacci, 720 P.2d 223, 224 (Idaho App. 1986) (holding that trial court's failure to comply with rule analogous to Alaska Civil Rule 58, which required that judgments be entered "forthwith," did not divest trial court of jurisdiction).
8. Because no final judgment had been previously issued, the superior court retained jurisdiction over this case through July 2006 and therefore had the power to create the equitable lien. The superior court's creation of an equitable lien in Crooks's favor is therefore AFFIRMED.
Justice Eastaugh agrees with this result, but not the rationale. In his view, there was a final judgment, and the subsequent order simply took the action necessary to enforce the order.