A case involving the eviction of commercial tenants from city-owned property in Cordova back in 2002 has been remanded back to the Alaska Superior Court for further proceedings.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruling of Jan. 19 reversed in part and denied in part a motion for an accounting of what happened to their personal property from Carol and Perry Beecher, who operated a marine fueling facility on city-owned land. The high court also reversed the lower court’s order lifting a temporary stay on the city’s collection activities, vacated an award of attorney fees to the city, and remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings.
The Beechers, now residents of Anchorage, had operated the marine fueling facility through two closely-held corporations, Balance, Inc. and Sound Development, Inc.
The city had advised that they owed $30,527.22 in past due rent, and when that amount was not paid the city terminated their property lease, giving them 90 days to remove any improvements, after which such improvements would become city property. The city also recorded notices of sales tax liens against their corporations, covering all their real and personal property in the Cordova Recording District.
At length the city filed a complaint in the superior court seeking eviction, foreclosure of the sales tax liens and a money judgment of $118,759.61 for past-due rent and unpaid sales taxes.
The Supreme Court noted that a tug boat and landing craft were foreclosed on and sold at auction by the ships’ mortgage lender.
The Beechers argued that they were entitled to a better accounting of other property left behind, including trucks, parts vans, trailers, vans, a Jitney boat and other parts and supplies, items on which the couple put a value of $75,000.
Perry Beecher contended, in an interview with The Cordova Times, that there was a lot of equipment left behind on the property that the city used but did not sell and that the couple still wants an accounting of what happened to that equipment, which if sold would have covered the debt.
The supreme court rejected the Beechers’ argument that the city was legally require to execute against their personal property.
However, the court found that the city had a burden to produce evidence of how this property was disposed of and had failed to do so and reversed the superior court’s order accepting the city’s accounting. On remand, the superior court was directed to consider whether the Beechers had established concealment of material facts.
