The Alaska Supreme Court recently vacated a judgment concerning access rights to a property owned by the Jigliotti Family Trust. The ruling affects the Blooms, who own land that the Trust claims is necessary for access to its property. This decision is significant as it addresses property rights and easements, which can impact many landowners in similar situations.
The case, titled Bloom v. Jigliotti Family Trust (Docket Nos. S-18965, S-19085), began when the Jigliotti Family Trust sought to confirm its right to use an access trail that crosses the Blooms' property. The dispute centers on a 1966 license agreement that allowed access over the Blooms' land. The case has gone through several legal proceedings, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling on August 14, 2026.
The parties involved in this case include Donald and Deborah Bloom, who own property that obstructs the access trail, and the Jigliotti Family Trust, which claims the right to use that trail based on a historical license agreement. The dispute escalated when the Blooms constructed a home directly on the access trail, prompting the Trust to file a quiet title action in 2012 to confirm its access rights.
The initial trial court ruled that the 1966 license was valid but determined that the easement was partially extinguished by prescription due to the Blooms' actions blocking the trail. The Trust appealed this decision. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the trial court's findings but remanded the case for a final judgment to be entered. Upon remand, the trial court granted the Trust access to its property but denied its request for attorney's fees.
In its recent ruling, the Alaska Supreme Court stated, “We vacate the final judgment because it is inconsistent with the superior court's previous findings that the historical access easement was partially extinguished.” The court's opinion was delivered by Justice Oravec, with Justices Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate also participating.
The court's decision has significant implications for property rights in Alaska. It highlights the importance of accurately determining access rights and easements, especially when properties are developed in ways that obstruct historical access routes. The ruling could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the balance between property development and access rights.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings to establish a clear understanding of the access trail's location and the extent of the easement. The ruling may also prompt other landowners to review their property rights and easements, especially if they have similar historical agreements affecting access to their land.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the Trust has indicated it may seek to challenge the ruling regarding attorney's fees. However, the court's decision on the main issues of access rights and easement validity appears to be final, pending the upcoming proceedings in the lower court.