Three Native Alaskan organizations are seeking $240,985 in court costs from a Haines family in the aftermath of the litigation over access to a Chilkoot River fishing spot.
The family of Rosalie and Reuben Loewen and their three children make a fraction of that amount a year.
A few weeks ago, Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg ruled in Juneau that a public easement for vehicles to reach a dipnetting spot for eulachon – otherwise known as hooligan or candlefish – exists on the land of Reuben and Rosalie Loewen along the Chilkoot River. The easement is in effect for a short time each spring when anadromous fish return to spawn.
Sealaska, the Chilkoot Indian Association and the Alaska Native Brotherhood view the ruling as a victory in allowing Native Alaskans access to a traditional spot for subsistence fishing.
But the Loewens view the ruling as a compromise between two parties. A judge will have to rule on the dispute.
Under Alaska law, the winning side in civil litigation can seek court costs from the losing side. The Native groups filed paperwork to seek reimbursement for $240,985 in court costs.
“We felt surprised and disappointed. … Our attorney fees were many orders of magnitude less,” said Rosalie Loewen.
The Loewens could have avoided the huge legal costs if they settled the litigation in the early stages, said Kristen Miller, attorney for the Alaska Native groups Sealaska, CIA and the Alaska Native Brotherhood.
The Loewens and their attorney should have known about the law and the risk of court costs, Miller said. The Loewens’ attorney was not available for comment Wednesday.
“If you follow that logic through, that says you should never fight to represent your side. … The law should be accessible to everyone. … A quarter million dollars for a piece of land that small? In my mind, that’s outrageous,” Loewen said.
Loewen said the Native groups were not part of the issue when her family filed the original legal action – joining the matter after it began.
The Loewens live on the west side of the river, and filed for an accretion of their property in 2013. A riverside land owner’s property usually extends to the high-water mark of that river. But the Loewens’ land slowly rose over decades because of glacial rebound. Consequently, the high-water-mark property boundaries change.
Filing for accretion is how a landowner legally nails down the changing boundary.
But when the Loewens filed, the Alaska Native Brotherhood, CIA and Sealaska intervened, claiming an easement existed to allow continuing access based in sustained, traditional use.
The Loewens were OK with people walking to the river. But they objected to vehicles because of the environmental impacts. They eventually blocked vehicle access with boulders. That impacted elderly Natives who had to walk to the river.
The Native families removed the boulders. The Loewens put the boulders back. The dipnetters removed them again. And so on. Arguments erupted between the two parties at the site. Finally, the dispute went to court.