quasi-estoppel doctrine in Alaska

1998As it did below, PCI relies on Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978), where this court stated that quasi-estoppel “precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with one ... previously taken where circumstances render assertion of a second position unconscionable.” Jamison set out five relevant criteria for evaluating a quasi-estoppel claim: Among the many considerations which may indicate that an inconsistent position is unconscionable and the doctrine of quasi-estoppel should be applied are whether the party asserting the inconsistent position has ga

1998As it did below, PCI relies on Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978), where this court stated that quasi-estoppel “precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with one ... previously taken where circumstances render assertion of a second position unconscionable.” Jamison set out five relevant criteria for evaluating a quasi-estoppel claim: Among the many considerations which may indicate that an inconsistent position is unconscionable and the doctrine of quasi-estoppel should be applied are whether the party asserting the inconsistent position has ga

2024Quasi-estoppel cannot be applied to defeat unit owners’ recorded interest in common areas unless “the record owner . . . elected, ratified, acquiesced in and/or accepted the benefits of the transaction at issue.”49 We adopted this test in Dressel v. Weeks. 50 In that case an unscrupulous owner entered into an agreement to trade his cabin for a house.51 The other party to the trade did not record the transaction and then sold the cabin to a third party.52 When the third party claimed ownership of the cabin, the unscrupulous owner asserted his recorded title to the cabin as a defense.53 The thir

2024Quasi-estoppel cannot be applied to defeat unit owners’ recorded interest in common areas unless “the record owner . . . elected, ratified, acquiesced in and/or accepted the benefits of the transaction at issue.”49 We adopted this test in Dressel v. Weeks. 50 In that case an unscrupulous owner entered into an agreement to trade his cabin for a house.51 The other party to the trade did not record the transaction and then sold the cabin to a third party.52 When the third party claimed ownership of the cabin, the unscrupulous owner asserted his recorded title to the cabin as a defense.53 The thir

1995We have stated that “[qjuasi estoppel ‘precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with one he [or she] has previously taken where circumstances render assertion of the second position unconscionable.’ ” Dressel v. Weeks, 779 P.2d 324 (Alaska 1989) (quoting Jamison v. Consolidated Utils., Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978)); see also Wright v. State, 824 P.2d 718, 721 (Alaska 1992) (recognizing doctrine of quasi estoppel).

1995We have stated that “[qjuasi estoppel ‘precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with one he [or she] has previously taken where circumstances render assertion of the second position unconscionable.’ ” Dressel v. Weeks, 779 P.2d 324 (Alaska 1989) (quoting Jamison v. Consolidated Utils., Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978)); see also Wright v. State, 824 P.2d 718, 721 (Alaska 1992) (recognizing doctrine of quasi estoppel).