Lawsuit headed for stalemate

PALMER -- For two years, two local nonprofits have been fighting in court over title to a 14.5-acre parcel adjacent to the Palmer Pioneers' Home, but a recent court order handed down by Palmer Superior Court Judge Eric Smith makes it look as if title to the property will go to the state of Alaska instead.

Attorneys for both sides declined to comment for this article.

Palmer Senior Citizens Center Inc., in March 2000, filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Rural Rehabilitation Corp., seeking $400,000 in damages or title to a 14.5-acre parcel of land adjacent to the Pioneers' Home. The seniors' group believed the land was theirs because of a history of alleged promises by the ARRC and the state of Alaska to dedicate the land for a retirement home.

In an order signed June 10, Smith wrote that he was inclined to order that title to the property go to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Documents filed in court show that DNR was given title to the property by ARRC in 1969 with the requirement that the land be used "for the purpose of establishing an Alaska Pioneers' Home on the site and/or other state facilities."

Ownership of the property has been in question since at least 1995. At that time, the city of Palmer contracted with a land-planning company to study solutions for the housing needs of senior citizens. The city learned of the 1969 deal signed by then-ARRC president Walter Teeland and proceeded to negotiate with ARRC, the state and the senior citizens' center. How far those talks went, and what was agreed to, is still in question. The seniors' group claims in the suit that DNR transferred the land back to ARRC and that ARRC had promised to pass the land to the city of Palmer, which would either grant the land to the seniors or allow them to build on it.

Both the seniors' group and ARRC have filed motions to have the court dismiss the case without a trial -- in effect asking the court to grant them the property and declare the whole thing over. Until this month, both sides had failed in those requests and the case seemed to be headed for a jury trial.

In his June 10 order, Smith dismissed several arguments made by ARRC in its motion but agreed with ARRC on one point: DNR failed to follow state laws when it transferred the title back to ARRC in 1996.

Smith also wrote that the since the seniors' suit hinged on the illegal DNR transfer, their case would be dismissed. But even Smith doesn't seem to be sure if the endgame is near.

"It accordingly appears that the state now has title to the land at issue by operation of law. The court is inclined to issue an order to this effect, so as to clear the title as much as possible," Smith wrote. He scheduled a status hearing for the case on July 19, for which both parties have been asked to file brief statements as to what, if any, issues remain.