Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 34.03.310 (2026)
Retaliatory conduct prohibited
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 34.03.310. Retaliatory conduct prohibited.
Article 9. General Provisions.
(a) Except as provided in (c) and (d) of this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after the tenant has
(1) complained to the landlord of a violation of AS 34.03.100;
(2) sought to enforce rights and remedies granted the tenant under this chapter;
(3) organized or become a member of a tenant's union or similar organization; or
(4) complained to a governmental agency responsible for enforcement of governmental housing, wage, price, or rent controls.
(b) If the landlord acts in violation of (a) of this section, the tenant is entitled to the remedies provided in AS 34.03.210 and has a defense in an action against the tenant for possession.
(c) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this section, after serving a notice to quit to the tenant under AS 09.45.100 — 09.45.105, a landlord may bring an action for possession if
(1) the tenant is in default in rent;
(2) compliance with the applicable building or housing code requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition that would effectively deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit;
(3) the tenant is committing waste or a nuisance, or is using the dwelling unit for an illegal purpose or for other than living or dwelling purposes in violation of the rental agreement;
(4) the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the dwelling unit for personal purposes;
(5) the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the dwelling unit for the purpose of substantially altering, remodeling, or demolishing the premises;
(6) the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the dwelling unit for the purpose of immediately terminating for at least six months use of the dwelling unit as a dwelling unit; or
(7) the landlord has in good faith contracted to sell the property, and the contract of sale contains a representation by the purchaser corresponding to (4), (5) or (6) of this subsection.
(d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the landlord may increase the rent if the landlord
(1) has become liable for a substantial increase in property taxes, or a substantial increase in other maintenance or operating costs not associated with compliance with the complaint or request, not less than four months before the demand for an increase in rent; and the increase in rent bears a reasonable relationship to the net increase in taxes or costs;
(2) has completed a capital improvement of the dwelling unit or the property of which it is a part and the increase in rent does not exceed the amount that may be claimed for federal income tax purposes as a straight-line depreciation of the improvement, prorated among the dwelling units benefited by the improvement;
(3) can establish by competent evidence that the rent now demanded of the tenant does not exceed the rent charged other tenants of similar dwelling units in the building or, in the case of a single-family residence or if there is no similar dwelling unit in the building, does not exceed the fair rental value of the dwelling unit.
(e) Maintenance of the action under (c) of this section does not release the landlord from liability under AS 34.03.160(b).
(a) Except as provided in (c) and (d) of this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after the tenant has
(1) complained to the landlord of a violation of AS 34.03.100;
(2) sought to enforce rights and remedies granted the tenant under this chapter;
(3) organized or become a member of a tenant's union or similar organization; or
(4) complained to a governmental agency responsible for enforcement of governmental housing, wage, price, or rent controls.
(b) If the landlord acts in violation of (a) of this section, the tenant is entitled to the remedies provided in AS 34.03.210 and has a defense in an action against the tenant for possession.
(c) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) of this section, after serving a notice to quit to the tenant under AS 09.45.100 — 09.45.105, a landlord may bring an action for possession if
(1) the tenant is in default in rent;
(2) compliance with the applicable building or housing code requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition that would effectively deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit;
(3) the tenant is committing waste or a nuisance, or is using the dwelling unit for an illegal purpose or for other than living or dwelling purposes in violation of the rental agreement;
(4) the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the dwelling unit for personal purposes;
(5) the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the dwelling unit for the purpose of substantially altering, remodeling, or demolishing the premises;
(6) the landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the dwelling unit for the purpose of immediately terminating for at least six months use of the dwelling unit as a dwelling unit; or
(7) the landlord has in good faith contracted to sell the property, and the contract of sale contains a representation by the purchaser corresponding to (4), (5) or (6) of this subsection.
(d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the landlord may increase the rent if the landlord
(1) has become liable for a substantial increase in property taxes, or a substantial increase in other maintenance or operating costs not associated with compliance with the complaint or request, not less than four months before the demand for an increase in rent; and the increase in rent bears a reasonable relationship to the net increase in taxes or costs;
(2) has completed a capital improvement of the dwelling unit or the property of which it is a part and the increase in rent does not exceed the amount that may be claimed for federal income tax purposes as a straight-line depreciation of the improvement, prorated among the dwelling units benefited by the improvement;
(3) can establish by competent evidence that the rent now demanded of the tenant does not exceed the rent charged other tenants of similar dwelling units in the building or, in the case of a single-family residence or if there is no similar dwelling unit in the building, does not exceed the fair rental value of the dwelling unit.
(e) Maintenance of the action under (c) of this section does not release the landlord from liability under AS 34.03.160(b).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Helfrich v. Valdez Motel Corp., 207 P.3d 552 (Alaska 2009).
Helfrich v. Valdez Motel Corp., 207 P.3d 552 (Alaska 2009). “We have said that the public policy behind AS 34.03.310 is to encourage tenants to "assert their rights under their leases and under the law.”
DeNardo v. Corneloup, 163 P.3d 956 (Alaska 2007). “Retaliatory eviction is prohibited by AS 34.03.310. That statute is part of the URL-TA, *963 25 which is to be "liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
McCall v. Fickes, 556 P.2d 535 (Alaska 1976). “(AS 34.03.310) In short, we hold that AS 34.”
Vinson v. Hamilton, 854 P.2d 733 (Alaska 1993). “In comparison, in any action for possession, a tenant may raise the defense that the landlord has terminated the lease in retaliation for the tenant's assertion of his rights under the law or under the rental agreement.”
Tammie Guilford v. Weidner Inv. Servs., Inc., Weidner Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Tammie Guilford, 522 P.3d 1085 (Alaska 2023). “115 AS 34.03.310(a). -39- 7639 by URLTA and therefore did not trigger its anti-retaliation provision.”
Pub. Saf. Employees Ass'n v. State, 658 P.2d 769 (Alaska 1983). “140(c); 12 that the state had been guilty of a retaliatory rent increase in violation of AS 34.03.310; 13 and that the *774 refusal of the state to allow tenants to deduct the cost of repairs amounted to a forced waiver of the statutory right to repair and deduct in violation of…”
Tuyen Dinh v. Matthew Raines & Melissa Clayton, 544 P.3d 1156 (Alaska 2024). “”9 7 See AS 34.03.310 (providing that landlord may not retaliate “by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after tenant has (1) complained to the landlord of a violation of AS 34.”
Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 373 S.E.2d 489 (W. Va. 1988). “Ann. § 47-8-39; Or.Rev.Stat. § 91.865; R.”
Espenschied v. Mallick, 633 A.2d 388 (D.C. 1993). “See Alaska Stat. § 34.03.310 ; Ariz.Rev.Stat.”
Sharpe v. Trail, 902 P.2d 304 (Alaska 1995). “Retaliatory conduct is prohibited by AS 34.03.310, and it is tautological that conduct which is independently impermissible, must be impermissible because it runs afoul of another statute or the constitution.”
McManus v. The Aleutian Region Sch. Dist. (D. Alaska 2021). “35 at 2, 6; 45 at 1 (“The claims relating to hability[sic] of lodging primarily serve to establish a secondary residence by Plaintiff [Wayne] McManus inside the school building proper, where he was sleeping on the floor because of mold or other issues in district housing.”
W.W.G. Corp. v. Hughes, 960 P.2d 720 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998). “101(a)(2); Alaska Stat. §34.03.310 (a)(1)(1996). However, absent such a statute, no case of which we are aware has recognized a retaliatory eviction defense when the tenant has complained only to the landlord about the condition of the premises.”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.03.310(a) — 4 cases
Helfrich v. Valdez Motel Corp., 207 P.3d 552 (Alaska 2009). “We have said that the public policy behind AS 34.03.310 is to encourage tenants to "assert their rights under their leases and under the law.”
Vinson v. Hamilton, 854 P.2d 733 (Alaska 1993). “In comparison, in any action for possession, a tenant may raise the defense that the landlord has terminated the lease in retaliation for the tenant's assertion of his rights under the law or under the rental agreement.”
Tammie Guilford v. Weidner Inv. Servs., Inc., Weidner Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Tammie Guilford, 522 P.3d 1085 (Alaska 2023). “115 AS 34.03.310(a). -39- 7639 by URLTA and therefore did not trigger its anti-retaliation provision.”
DeNardo v. Corneloup, 163 P.3d 956 (Alaska 2007). “Retaliatory eviction is prohibited by AS 34.03.310. That statute is part of the URL-TA, *963 25 which is to be "liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.03.310(a)(1) — 1 case
Helfrich v. Valdez Motel Corp., 207 P.3d 552 (Alaska 2009). “We have said that the public policy behind AS 34.03.310 is to encourage tenants to "assert their rights under their leases and under the law.”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.03.310(a)(2) — 1 case
Helfrich v. Valdez Motel Corp., 207 P.3d 552 (Alaska 2009). “We have said that the public policy behind AS 34.03.310 is to encourage tenants to "assert their rights under their leases and under the law.”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.03.310(b) — 2 cases
DeNardo v. Corneloup, 163 P.3d 956 (Alaska 2007). “Retaliatory eviction is prohibited by AS 34.03.310. That statute is part of the URL-TA, *963 25 which is to be "liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
Helfrich v. Valdez Motel Corp., 207 P.3d 552 (Alaska 2009). “We have said that the public policy behind AS 34.03.310 is to encourage tenants to "assert their rights under their leases and under the law.”
— Alaska Stat. § 34.03.310(c)(1) — 1 case
DeNardo v. Corneloup, 163 P.3d 956 (Alaska 2007). “Retaliatory eviction is prohibited by AS 34.03.310. That statute is part of the URL-TA, *963 25 which is to be "liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.