The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a superior court decision denying a Fairbanks man's claim to an easement for a driveway across his neighbors' property, concluding that he failed to prove his legal right to use the disputed access route.
In *Alex Koponen v. Vsevolod D. Romanov and Maria C. Sanders*, decided Dec. 19, 2025, the state's highest court upheld the Fourth Judicial District Superior Court's ruling that rejected Koponen's claims for both an easement by estoppel and a prescriptive easement. Chief Justice Carney authored the unanimous opinion for the five-member court.
The property dispute centered on Koponen's assertion that he had legal rights to use a driveway across land owned by Romanov and Sanders. Koponen claimed that a previous owner of the neighboring property had given him oral permission to use the driveway and that he would not have built his house in its current location without believing he had easement rights for access.
The current property owners, Romanov and Sanders, denied that any easement existed and challenged Koponen's claims in court. The case originated in superior court under case number 4FA-23-01376 CI, where Judge Kirk Schwalm presided over the initial proceedings.
Koponen advanced two primary legal theories to support his claimed easement rights. First, he argued for an easement by estoppel, which typically requires proof that a property owner made representations about access rights that another party reasonably relied upon to their detriment. Second, he claimed a prescriptive easement, which generally requires showing continuous, open, and notorious use of another's property for a specified period under Alaska law.
The superior court found that Koponen had not presented sufficient evidence to support his claim of an oral grant to use the driveway. Additionally, the trial court determined that the driveway was not visible to a reasonably diligent owner of the neighboring property, which undermined Koponen's prescriptive easement argument.
Under Alaska law, easements by estoppel require clear evidence that a property owner made definitive statements or took actions that would lead a reasonable person to believe they had permission to use the property. The doctrine protects individuals who rely on such representations and suffer harm as a result. However, courts require substantial proof of both the original representation and the detrimental reliance.
Prescriptive easements, meanwhile, allow individuals to gain legal rights to use another's property through long-term, open use that puts the true owner on notice of the claimed rights. Alaska courts typically require that such use be continuous, hostile to the owner's interests, open and notorious enough that a diligent owner would discover it, and persist for the statutory period.
The Alaska Supreme Court's decision reinforces established property law principles requiring clear evidence to establish easement rights. The ruling demonstrates the challenges property owners face when attempting to prove easement claims based primarily on oral agreements or historical use patterns without formal documentation.
Property easement disputes frequently arise in Alaska's developing communities, where informal arrangements between neighbors may not be properly documented or recorded with local authorities. Such cases often involve competing interpretations of past conversations, actions, and understandings between current and former property owners.
The case highlights the importance of formal documentation when property owners wish to grant access rights to neighbors. Written easement agreements recorded with appropriate authorities provide clear legal protection for all parties and help prevent costly litigation over disputed access rights.
Koponen was represented by himself in the appeal, appearing pro se before the state's highest court. Romanov and Sanders were represented by attorneys John Foster Wallace and Bobbie L. Allen from the Fairbanks law firm Zimmerman & Wallace.
The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling in *Koponen* provides guidance for future property disputes involving claimed easement rights. The decision emphasizes that courts will carefully scrutinize evidence supporting easement claims and will not readily infer such rights without substantial proof meeting established legal standards.
The opinion, numbered 7799 in the court's records, is subject to correction before publication in the Pacific Reporter, according to standard court procedures. The Alaska court system encourages readers to report any errors to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts in Anchorage.
This decision joins a body of Alaska case law addressing property rights and easement disputes that frequently arise in the state's unique geographic and development context. The ruling reinforces that property owners seeking to establish easement rights must present clear, convincing evidence meeting well-established legal requirements rather than relying on informal understandings or assumptions about access rights.