MUN SEIFERT V. ESKIMOS, INC., No. 14-35777 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUN S. SEIFERT, No. 14-35777 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00080-TMB v. MEMORANDUM* ESKIMOS, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 13, 2015 Anchorage, Alaska Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Appellant Mun S. Seifert (Seifert) appeals the district court’s order granting defendant-Appellee Eskimos, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Seifert contends that the district court erred in finding that Seifert had not pled facts giving rise to an enforceable lease. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The unambiguous language of the lease and the Alaska Statute of Frauds required any extension over one year to be in writing. See Alaska Stat. § 09.25.010(a)(6), (b) (requiring leases that exceed one year to be committed to writing). No legal or equitable exception negated that requirement in this case. Cf. Alaska Stat. § 09.25.020 (providing that full performance by one party accepted by the other according to the terms of the contract is a statutory exception to the Statute of Frauds); Mitchell v. Land, 355 P.2d 682, 686 (Alaska 1960) (recognizing part performance as an exception to the Statute of Frauds). Even if the prior owner equitably waived its contractual right to demand a signed writing, Seifert cited no authority suggesting that the prior owner’s waiver binds successors in interest. In addition, Seifert made no persuasive argument that a verbal promise to extend a contractual lease should be construed to run with the land. See Restatement (Second) of Prop.: Landlord & Tenant § 16.1 (suggesting that only an express promise in a lease runs with the land). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.