Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Farmer v. Alaska USA Title Agency, Inc. (10/24/2014) sp-6963

Farmer v. Alaska USA Title Agency, Inc. (10/24/2014) sp-6963

         Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER .  

         Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

         303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                   

         corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.  



                   THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



ROBERT J. FARMER,                                    )  

                                                     )        Supreme Court No. S-15163  

                  Appellant,                         )  

                                                     )        Superior Court No. 3AN-13-04416 CI  

         v.                                          )  

                                                     )        O P I N I O N  

ALASKA USA TITLE                                     )  

AGENCY, INC. and PEGGY JO                            )        No. 6963 - October 24, 2014  

                                              

WATSON,                                              )  

                                                     )  

                  Appellees.                         )  

_______________________________ )  



                  Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                              

                  Judicial District, Anchorage, Erin B. Marston, Judge.   



                  Appearances:    Kenneth  P.  Jacobus,  P.C.,  Anchorage,  for  

                                                        

                  Appellant.    David  D.  Clark,  Law  Office  of  David  Clark,  

                  Anchorage, for Appellee Peggy Jo Watson.  No appearance  

                                                                               

                  for Appellee Alaska USA Title Agency, Inc.  



                  Before:  Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and  

                                              

                  Bolger, Justices.  



                  STOWERS, Justice.  



I.       INTRODUCTION  



                  A  debtor  was  given  proper  initial  notice  of  a  pending  nonjudicial  



foreclosure sale but was not given additional notice when the sale was postponed.  The  



debtor argued that equity required re-notice after each postponement and that the lack  



of  re-notice  violated  his  due  process  rights.    The  superior  court  granted  summary  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

judgment to the creditor.  We affirm because equity does not require re-notice after  



postponement of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and notice of a postponement by public  



announcement satisfies due process.   



II.       FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  



                                               

                    In 1992 Robert J. Farmer and his wife, Kathy J. Farmer, bought Wolverine  



                                                                     1  

Lodge in Glennallen from Peggy Jo Watson.   The purchase price of $365,000 was  



secured by a deed of trust on the property.  Farmer defaulted on the mortgage for the first  



time in 1996, but he cured before the foreclosure sale occurred.  



                    In 2012 Farmer defaulted again.  Farmer was almost five months late on the  



                                                                                        

payments, had not paid the real estate taxes or room taxes, and had no insurance on the  



                                           

property.    Watson  paid  all  of  these  expenses  herself  in  order  to  keep  the  property  



                                                                                                    

up-to-date and insured.  She testified that "Farmer promised many times that he would  



bring the loan current and obtain insurance," but "[h]e never did."  



                                                                                             

                    In March 2012 Watson commenced nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.  



                                                                      

Watson's attorney recorded a notice of default and a notice of sale, and distributed them  



                                                                                                   

to Farmer by mail and personal service.  Notice of the nonjudicial foreclosure sale was  



published  in  the  Alaska  Journal  of  Commerce  and  posted  at  various  locations  in  



Anchorage.  



                                                                                                 

                    The nonjudicial foreclosure sale was postponed six times.  It was initially  



                                                                                                                     

set for July 25, but Watson postponed it until August 29.  On August 28 Farmer filed for  



                                                         

Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and Watson  again postponed the sale, this time at Farmer's  



          1  

                                                           

                    The deed of trust reflects that the property was purchased from Peggy Jo  

                                                                                                  

Dicks and Jesse Allen Dicks.  Peggy Jo presumably later changed her name to Peggy Jo  

Watson.  



                                                              -2-                                                           6963  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

request, until September 26. Because of the ensuing automatic bankruptcy stay,                                                     2 the sale 



was postponed until October 31, then until November 28, then again until December 19,             

                                                                                                              3   Watson's attorney  

and finally until December 27, when the sale actually took place.                                                 



was the only attendee at each of the scheduled sales.  Each of these postponements was  

                                                                                                                 



announced publicly on the sale date, and the trustee signed the notice of postponement  

                                                                                                          



every time.  Farmer was not otherwise notified of any of the postponements, and, at the  



time   of   the   actual   sale,   he   alleges   that   neither   "[he],   [his]   wife,   nor   [his]  



bankruptcy attorney knew . . . that a deed of trust foreclosure sale was scheduled for  



December 27, 2012."  



                                                                                                                             

                      Over the course of the postponements, Farmer asked for the cure amount  



                                     

three separate times, the  last time being on December 11, 2012.  Watson's attorney  



provided the cure amount after each request.  Farmer testified that he "was in the process  



                                                                            

of obtaining funds in order to bring the deed of trust current, and would have been able  



                                                                                             

to do so."  But the record contains no documentation of any attempt to cure, and Farmer  



                                                                                    

presented no evidence of his attempts to "obtain[] funds."  At the time of the bankruptcy  



                                                                                                                                   

proceedings, Farmer had $200 in cash and $113 in his bank account.  Watson swore in  



an affidavit that Farmer "never promised . . . to cure the foreclosure" after she received  



relief from the bankruptcy stay.  



                                                                                                                         

                      At the nonjudicial foreclosure sale on December 27, 2012, Watson bought  



                                                                                                 

the property with a bid of $120,000.  The only valuation of the property was Farmer's  



                                                                           

own valuation on his bankruptcy worksheet, which was $150,000.  Watson believed that  



                                                                    

$150,000  was  "in  the  ball-park  given  the  amount  of  deferred  maintenance  on  the  



property."  



           2          See 11 U.S.C.  362(a) (2012).  



           3          The automatic stay was lifted on December 7, 2012.  



                                                                      -3-                                                                    6963  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                                    

                       Farmer filed suit in January 2013, challenging the nonjudicial foreclosure.  



                                        

He argued mainly that he had not received notice of the sale, that he could have cured,  



                                                                                                       

and that the foreclosure was a forfeiture.  Watson moved for summary judgment on the  



                                                                                                            

validity of the foreclosure.  She argued that the trustee was not required to send notice  



to  Farmer  every  time  the  sale  was  postponed,  and  that  Farmer  offered  no  evidence  



                                                                                            

 showing that he was in a position to cure. The superior court granted summary judgment  



to Watson.  The court concluded that the foreclosure was conducted "according to the  



appropriate  statutes,"  was  properly  postponed,  and  that  "Watson  did  not  mislead  



 [Farmer] by providing a cure amount."  Farmer appeals.  



III.        STANDARD OF REVIEW  



                                                                                                                        

                       We review the "grant of a summary judgment motion de novo, affirming  



                                                                    

if the record presents no genuine issue of material fact and if the movant is entitled to  



                                                  4  

judgment as a matter of law."    In this examination, we draw all reasonable inferences  

in favor of the nonmovant.5  In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, a party  



                                                                                                                     6  

must present more than "unsupported assumptions and speculation."   We "apply our  



                                                                                                

independent judgment to questions of law, adopting the rule of law most persuasive in  

light of precedent, reason, and policy."7  



            4          Erkins   v.   Alaska  Tr.,  LLC ,  265  P.3d  292,  296  (Alaska  2011)  (quoting  



Beegan v. State, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities                                   , 195 P.3d 134, 138 (Alaska 2008))       

(internal quotation marks omitted).  



            5          Id .  



            6  

                                        

                       Boyko  v.  Anchorage  Sch.  Dist. ,  268  P.3d  1097,  1103  (Alaska  2012)  

(quoting Perkins v. Doyon Universal Servs., LLC , 151 P.3d 413, 416 (Alaska 2006))  

(internal quotation marks omitted).  



            7  

                                                        

                       Shaffer v. Bellows, 260 P.3d 1064, 1068 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Smith v.
  

Radecki , 238 P.3d 111, 114 (Alaska 2010)) (internal quotation marks and alterations
  

                                                                                                                           (continued...)
  



                                                                       -4-                                                               6963
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

IV.	     DISCUSSION  



                                                                                        

                   Farmer makes three arguments on appeal: (1) that failing to notify him after  



                                                                                                            

each postponement was inequitable and violated his due process rights under the Alaska  



                                                                           

Constitution; (2) that he was misled into thinking that he would have a "reasonable time"  



to cure; and (3) that the sale price was a forfeiture.  



         A.	       The Superior Court Did Not Err By Concluding That Farmer Had  

                   Sufficient Notice Of The Sale.  



                   Farmer's central contention is that he should have received notice of the  



                                                           

date and time of the foreclosure sale after each postponement.  He argues that re-notice  



                                                             

is required by equity, and the lack of such notice violated his due process rights.  The  



                                                                                 

superior court determined that "[t]he foreclosure sale . . . was done correctly" and "[t]he  



sale  was  properly  postponed."    We  agree:    equity  does  not  require  re-notice  after  



postponement of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, and Farmer received constitutionally  



sufficient notice.  



                                                                                          

                   Nonjudicial foreclosure sales are governed by AS 34.20.080.  The statute  



requires re-notice to the debtor only when "the foreclosure [is] postponed for more than  

                 8  Re-notice is not required here because the foreclosure sale occurred within  

12 months."                                                                                    



12 months of the original foreclosure sale date.  Parties may also contract for additional  



         7(...continued)  



omitted).  



         8         AS 34.20.080(e); see Ostrow v. Higgins , 722 P.2d 936, 941-42 (Alaska  



1986)  (holding  that  the  statute  did  not  require  re-notice  because  "the  legislature  

presumed that the trustee followed postponement notice requirements enunciated in the  

                                     

deed of trust itself").  



                                                           -5-	                                                   6963
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

          9 

                                          

notice,  but Farmer did not.  Thus, any re-notice requirement must be based in equity or 



flow from constitutional rights.  



                                                                                  

                    1.	      Equity does not require re-notice after a nonjudicial foreclosure  

                             is postponed.  



                    Farmer argues that we should impose an "actual notice" requirement "based  



                                                           10	                                 11 

on equity, similar to Rosenberg [v. Smidt   ] and Young [v. Embley   ]."  He further argues  



                                    

that "[i]f a trustee has to exercise due diligence to locate an actual address for the purpose  



                                                                            

of actual notice, equity also requires that the trustee must provide actual notice when the  



address is known."  



                   Neither Rosenberg nor Young supports the proposition that the court should  

imply a notice requirement in equity. Young did not speak to the issue of equity at all,12  



                                                                                                

and the situation in Rosenberg is distinguishable.  In Rosenberg , we examined whether  



                                                                                                             

the trustee was required to exercise due diligence to learn the debtor's new address when  

                                                                                            13   We  noted  a  tension  

notice  of  the  pending  foreclosure  was  returned  "unclaimed."       



"between [the] free and easy alienability of real property and notice to persons whose  

                                                                                                      



                                                                                                     14  

interest  in  real  property  is  to  be  affected  by  .  .  .  private  action."                         We  implied  a  

                        



heightened notice requirement to "balance adequately the competing interests involved"  

                            



          9         See Ostrow, 722 P.2d at 941.
  



          10        727 P.2d 778 (Alaska 1986). 
 



          11        143 P.3d 936 (Alaska 2006).
  



          12        In  Young we held that the trustee, if requested, had a duty to provide the                



cure amount "at a reasonable time before foreclosing."  Id. at 947.  But our holding was   

an exercise in statutory interpretation, not based in equity. Id.  



          13       Rosenberg , 727 P.2d at 779-80.  



          14       Id. at 783.  



                                                             -6-	                                                       6963
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                            15  

                                                                

at that stage in the nonjudicial foreclosure process.                            But Rosenberg dealt with a much  

more important stage of notice - initial notice of the pending nonjudicial foreclosure.16  



Here Farmer had actual initial notice that his property would be sold via nonjudicial  



                                                                                           

foreclosure; he simply did not receive actual re-notice after each public postponement.  



                   

But Farmer had the critical piece of information - that foreclosure was pending.  Had  



Farmer appeared at each scheduled sale, he would have learned of the postponements  



                                                                              

and rescheduled dates of the sale.  Thus, his interest in re-notice is much weaker than the  



interest in receiving notice of the initial foreclosure at stake in Rosenberg .  



                    Since  Rosenberg ,   we   have   declined   to   imply   a   heightened   notice  

requirement when it "would impose a significant burden on a routine transaction."17  



Postponement  of  a  nonjudicial  foreclosure  sale  is  one  such  routine  transaction.  



Foreclosures may be postponed multiple times; implying a re-notice requirement after  



                                                                                              

each postponement would severely complicate the nonjudicial foreclosure process.  And  



                                                                                                                

as we have explained, the debtor's interest in notice here is much weaker than was the  



                                                

debtor's interest in Rosenberg :  in Rosenberg , the interest was in receiving initial notice  



                                                                      

of the pending nonjudicial foreclosure; in this case, the debtor's interest is in the right to  

be inattentive.18  



          15        Id.   



          16        Id. at 780.  



          17        Blood v. Kenneth A. Murray Ins., Inc. , 151 P.3d 428, 434 (Alaska 2006).  



          18  

                                      

                    Under  the  current  statutory  requirements,  debtors  must  either  keep  in  

                                                                                    

contact with the trustee or attend the foreclosure sales to learn of the postponement dates.  

                                                                                                                    

See AS 34.20.080(e).  If re-notice were required, debtors would not have to make any  

independent inquiries or attend the foreclosure sales.  



                                                               -7-                                                         6963
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                                                           19  

                                                                                                                       

                    Farmer could have contracted for more notice,                             but he did not; he could  



have  attended  the  foreclosure  sales,  but  he  did  not;  and  he  could  have  contacted  



                                                                                    

Watson's attorney to inquire about the sale date, but he did not.  Thus, Farmer bears the  



                                                      20  

consequence of his own inattention.                       The superior court did not err when it concluded  



that re-notice is not required by equity.  



                    2.        Re-notice is not required under the Alaska Constitution.  



                    Farmer also argues that failing to give notice after every postponement  



violated   his   procedural   due   process   rights   because   "[o]ne   of   the   fundamental  



                                                                                                          

requirements of procedural due process is the right to have adequate notice of what is  



                                                                                       

being done to you or your property." He argues that there was state action because "[t]he  



                                                                                                                     

entire statutory scheme under which nonjudicial foreclosures take[] place was created by  



                       

state action." But we have already decided this issue.  In Ostrow v. Higgins the appellant  



                                                                                                            

argued that her due process rights were violated when the trustee did not give notice after  



                                                                                         21  

the nonjudicial foreclosure of her property was postponed.                                   We held:  



                    Even  assuming  arguendo  the  presence  of  state  action  in  

                                                                                            

                    Alaska's  deed  of  trust  statute,  we  conclude  that  Ostrow  



          19        See  Ostrow v. Higgins, 722 P.2d 936, 942 (Alaska 1986).                                 Farmer's deed  



of trust allows the trustee to postpone the sale without providing further notice.  



          20        In re Nghiem , 264 B.R. 557, 562 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001) ("Other courts  



have  .  .  .  point[ed]  out  that  debtors  who  receive  notice  of  foreclosure  sales  before  

bankruptcy know that the property is threatened with foreclosure and have an obligation  

                                                                                                                 

to stay informed of the status of the foreclosure process."); In re Jauregui , 197 B.R. 673,  

                                             

675 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1996) ("A debtor who ignores or chooses to forget the status of  

a pending foreclosure should rightly bear the consequences of doing so."); Fitzgerald v.  

First Nat'l Bank of Boston , 703 N.E.2d 1192, 1195 (Mass. App. 1999) ("[T]he plaintiffs  

                  

failed to attend the . . . auction  at  their peril . . . .  They could have protected their  

                                                       

interests by attending the . . . auction and communicating with the auctioneer . . . .").  



          21        Ostrow, 722 P.2d at 940-42.  



                                                               -8-                                                         6963
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                    suffered no deprivation because both she and potential third  

                                                                      

                   party bidders received sufficient notice. A construction of  

                                                               

                   AS 34.20.080(e) as allowing sale by public declaration gives  

                                                                                                    [22] 

                   notice reasonably calculated to reach interested parties.  



                                                                                                           23 

                                  

Farmer fails to present any persuasive reason to depart from our precedent.                                    Therefore,  



we  continue  to  hold  that  postponement  by  a  public  announcement  "gives  notice  

reasonably calculated to reach interested parties."24  



                                                                      

          B.	       The Superior Court Did Not Err By Concluding That Farmer Was Not  

                   Misled By The Cure Amount Or The Time To Cure.  



                                                                                                       

                   Farmer next argues that "he was not aware of the amount required to cure,  



                                                                          

and believed and relied on acts of Ms. Watson . . . that there would be a reasonable time  

allowed to bring the default current."25  But he supplied no evidence of communications  



          22	      Id. at 942 (italicization removed).  



          23       See McCrary v. Ivanof Bay Vill.                 , 265 P.3d 337, 341 (Alaska 2011) ("We  



will overrule a prior decision only when clearly convinced that the rule was originally  

erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than  

                                                                                                                 

harm would result from a departure from precedent." (quoting Guerrero ex rel. Guerrero  

v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. , 123 P.3d 966, 982 n.104 (Alaska 2005)) (internal quotation  

                                                                                          

marks omitted)).  



          24        Ostrow, 722 P.2d at 942 (citing Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust  

                                                                                 

Co., 339 U.S. 306,  314-15 (1950);  Wickersham v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry  

Comm'n, 680 P.2d 1135, 1144 (Alaska 1984)).  



          25  

                                                                                            

                   Farmer argues that he was denied the right to cure and that the cure amount  

                                                                                   

kept changing.  Neither argument has merit. Farmer was provided with the cure amount  

                                                                              

on three separate occasions but still failed to cure. He presented no evidence, aside from  

his affidavit, that he had any money with which to cure.  And the cure amount kept  

increasing to reflect the fees and unpaid costs that accumulated over the months. See  

AS 34.20.070(b) (allowing cure "by payment of the sum then in default, other than the  

                                                                    

principal that would not then be due if no default had occurred, and attorney and other  

foreclosure fees and costs actually incurred by the beneficiary and trustee due to the  

                                                                                                           (continued...)  



                                                             -9-	                                                      6963
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

with Watson to support his allegation that Watson misled him.  The superior court found  

                                     



that "Ms. Watson did not mislead the plaintiff by providing a cure amount."  



                    We  have  held  that  under  AS  34.20.070(b)  the  lender  has  a  duty  to  



                                                                                                      26  

"seasonably advise the obligor on request of the amount in default."                                      This requires the  



lender to "provide the figure . . . at a reasonable time before foreclosing" if the debtor has  

                                                    



                   27  

requested it.          In  Young v. Embley we found the cure procedure defective when the  



debtor had repeatedly asked for the cure amount, but the lender only provided it on the               



                                            28  

morning  of  the  foreclosure.                    Likewise,  in  Hagberg  v.  Alaska  National  Bank  we  



                                                              

concluded that a preliminary injunction should have been granted to stop a nonjudicial  



                                                      

foreclosure where the cure amount was only provided three days before the foreclosure  

sale.29  



                    Watson's attorney provided cure figures to Farmer in July and September.  



                                                                                                             

The cure amount was provided a third time on December 11, 2012. The foreclosure sale  



                                                                                                        

occurred two weeks later, on December 27, 2012.  Watson timely provided the cure  



                                                                              

amount every time Farmer asked.  Farmer knew  of the cure amount throughout the  



                                                                

pendency of the sale, yet failed to cure.   He also failed to inquire in his cure-amount  



requests when the sale was scheduled.  So long as the debtor is promptly provided the  



                                       

cure amount on request, the trustee need not wait a set time after the cure amount is  



          25(...continued)  



default"); Albrecht v. Alaska Tr., LLC, 286 P.3d 1059, 1063 (Alaska 2012) (holding that  

                                                                                           

inclusion of foreclosure costs and fees was proper under AS 34.20.070(b)).  



          26        Hagberg v. Alaska Nat'l Bank , 585 P.2d 559, 562 (Alaska 1978).  



          27        Young v. Embley, 143 P.3d 936, 947 (Alaska 2006).  



          28        Id.  



          29        Hagberg , 585 P.2d at 561-62.  



                                                              -10-                                                         6963
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

provided to foreclose.  The superior court did not err by concluding that Watson did not  



mislead Farmer regarding the time to cure.  



         C.        The Nonjudicial Foreclosure Sale Was Not A Forfeiture.  



                   Finally, Farmer argues that the $120,000 sale price was inadequate because  



he had paid over $500,000 to Watson and had made substantial improvements to the  



             30  

property.        Watson responds that the sale price was not a forfeiture because it was 80%  



of Farmer's valuation.  



                   Under a deed of trust, the trustee has the power to "foreclose and sell the  



                                                                                                                       31  

                                             

property according to the terms provided in the deed" if the debtor defaults on the loan. 



                                                                                                      

The  nonjudicial  foreclosure  sale  may  be  voided  for  certain  types  of  defects  in  the  



           32                                                                                         33 

process,       but mere inadequacy of price is generally not sufficient by itself.                        "However,  

                                                                                            



if the inadequacy of the sale price is (1) 'so gross as to shock the conscience and raise  

                                          



         30        Farmer  also  alleges  that  Watson  sold  two  of  his  liquor  licenses  at  the  



foreclosure sale and that the proceeds of these licenses should have been used to bring  

his  payments  up  to  date.    But  the  liquor  licenses  were  not  part  of  the  nonjudicial  

foreclosure and are not relevant to this proceeding.  If the liquor licenses are eventually  

                                                                                  

sold in a private UCC sale, the surplus above the debt that they are securing will be paid  

to    Farmer's        company,         Farmer        Valley       Liquors,       Inc.     See     AS      45.29.615;  

U.C.C.    9-615(d)(1)  (2012);  4  J 

                                                AMES  J.   WHITE  &   ROBERT  S.   SUMMERS ,   UNIFORM  

COMMERCIAL CODE   34-4 (6th ed. 2010).  



         31        Baskurt      v.    Beal ,    101      P.3d     1041,      1044      (Alaska       2004)      (citing  



AS 34.20.070(a)).  



         32        See Rosenberg v. Smidt, 727 P.2d 778, 784 (Alaska 1986) (holding that sale  

                                                                  

is voidable when defect goes "not to the trustee's right to proceed with foreclosure but  

                                                 

only to the mechanics of exercising the power") (internal quotation marks omitted).  



         33        Baskurt , 101 P.3d at 1044 (citing McHugh v. Church , 583 P.2d 210, 213  



(Alaska 1978)).  Homes generally do not sell at a foreclosure sale for the full amount  

they would fetch through a normal transaction. BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp. , 511 U.S.  

                                     

531, 537-38 (1994).  



                                                          -11-                                                    6963
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

a presumption of fraud or unfairness,' or (2) is coupled with other irregularities in the   

                                                                                                             34   "Gross inadequacy is  

 sale procedures, then invalidation of the sale may be justified."                                               

measured by reference to the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale."35  

                                                                                  



                       We considered what would constitute an inadequate price for a trustee  

                                                                                           36     We  explained  that,  although  

foreclosure  sale  of  a  property  in  Baskurt  v.  Beal .      



jurisdictions disagree on the threshold for unacceptability, "[f]oreclosure sale prices of  

                                                   

fifty percent or more of fair market value are routinely upheld."37   Here the property sold  

                                                                                                                          



for 80% of its undisputed value; this is not a forfeiture.  And whatever improvements  

                                                                                                            



Farmer made would be reflected in the valuation of the property, a valuation Farmer  



               

himself provided.  Finally, the amount Farmer has paid on the property is not relevant  



to whether the property sold for a reasonable amount.  



                                                                             

                       The superior court did not err in concluding that the sale of the property  



was properly conducted.  



V.          CONCLUSION  



                       We AFFIRM the decision of the superior court in all respects.  



            34         Baskurt , 101 P.3d at 1044 (quoting McHugh , 583 P.2d at 213-14).
  



            35         Id.
  



            36         Id. at 1046 (invalidating a sale for 15% of the value of the property).
  



            37         Id. at 1044 (collecting cases from other jurisdictions).
  



                                                                        -12-                                                                      6963  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC