The Alaska Supreme Court issued a ruling on November 28, 2025, in *Alaska USA Federal Credit Union v. The Sayer Law Group, P.C.*, a complex case involving banking regulations and child support enforcement procedures. The opinion, designated No. 7796, addressed a dispute that originated in the Superior Court of Alaska's Third Judicial District in Anchorage.
Alaska USA Federal Credit Union filed the petition against multiple respondents, including The Sayer Law Group, P.C., the Alaska Department of Revenue's Child Support Services Division, and Acting Commissioner Janelle Earls. The case also named individual respondents Troy R. Lewis and Shanda M. Lewis, though they did not appear in the proceedings.
The dispute arose from Superior Court case No. 3AN-21-05226 CI, which was initially heard by Judge Una S. Gandbhir. The case had previously been before the District Court of Alaska in Anchorage under Judge Brian K. Clark before reaching the state's highest court through the petition process.
Representing Alaska USA Federal Credit Union, attorney Robert A. Royce of Jermain Dunnagan & Owens, P.C. in Anchorage argued the credit union's position. The Sayer Law Group, P.C. was represented by Brian G. Sayer from the firm's Waterloo, Iowa office. The state respondents were represented by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan P. Clement from Anchorage and Attorney General Treg Taylor from Juneau.
The case drew significant attention from the banking industry, with three major financial organizations filing amicus curiae briefs supporting the credit union's position. The Alaska Bankers Association, Alaska Credit Union League, and Credit Union National Association were represented by attorneys Andrew Erickson and Bruce Moore from Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP in Anchorage. Their participation indicates the broader implications this case may have for financial institutions operating in Alaska.
Justice Pate authored the opinion for the Alaska Supreme Court, with the full panel consisting of Chief Justice Maassen and Justices Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate participating in the decision. The court's ruling comes at a time when state agencies are increasingly seeking to collect child support through various enforcement mechanisms, including those involving financial institutions.
The Alaska Department of Revenue's Child Support Services Division has been actively pursuing collection efforts as part of the state's broader initiative to ensure child support obligations are met. These efforts often intersect with banking operations, creating potential conflicts between state enforcement actions and federal banking regulations that govern credit union operations.
While the specific details of the court's holding and reasoning are not available in the preliminary materials, the case represents a significant intersection of banking law, family law, and state administrative procedures. The involvement of a federal credit union adds another layer of complexity, as these institutions operate under both federal and state regulatory frameworks.
The case's procedural history, moving from district court to superior court and ultimately to the Alaska Supreme Court, suggests the legal issues involved were substantial enough to warrant review by the state's highest judicial authority. The participation of major banking industry associations as amici curiae further emphasizes the precedential importance of the ruling for financial institutions throughout Alaska.
Child support enforcement has become an increasingly complex area of law as state agencies develop new collection mechanisms and technologies. Financial institutions often find themselves caught between their obligations to customers and their duties to comply with state enforcement actions. This tension can create operational challenges for banks and credit unions while potentially affecting their customer relationships.
The timing of the opinion's release, just before the end of November 2025, may influence how financial institutions and child support agencies approach similar disputes in the future. The Alaska Supreme Court's guidance in this area could establish important precedents for how such conflicts should be resolved.
As the opinion is subject to correction before publication in the Pacific Reporter, interested parties are advised that the final version may contain modifications. The Alaska Supreme Court has provided specific contact information for reporting any errors in the preliminary version.
The case highlights the ongoing evolution of child support enforcement mechanisms and their interaction with the banking industry. As state agencies continue to develop new collection strategies, financial institutions will need to carefully navigate their responsibilities under both state family law requirements and federal banking regulations.
The involvement of out-of-state legal counsel for The Sayer Law Group, with representation coming from Iowa, suggests the case may have implications beyond Alaska's borders or involve parties with multi-state interests. This interstate element adds another dimension to the already complex legal and regulatory issues at stake in the dispute.