Unambiguous Plat Dedications: Private Rights of Way Preclude Extrinsic Evidence

Introduction

In Arthur Behm v. John Ketchum and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Supreme Court No. S-18872, June 4, 2025), the Alaska Supreme Court was asked to resolve a boundary and access dispute involving a 1967 subdivision plat in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Arthur Behm, owner of Lot 13 within the Rainbow Shores subdivision, sued his neighbor John Ketchum, who owns adjacent land outside the subdivision, seeking declaratory relief, trespass damages, and quiet title. Ketchum counterclaimed for quiet title and asked the court to declare the 20-foot right of way over Behm’s land dedicated to the public. The superior court found the plat ambiguous, admitted extrinsic evidence and applied rules of construction to hold the way public, then awarded fees to Ketchum. Behm appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Alaska Supreme Court reversed. It held that the plat’s “four corners” unambiguously designate the right of way as private, because (1) the certificate of dedication allows “public or private use as shown on this plat,” (2) only Lot 17 and all roads are expressly labeled “public,” and (3) nothing else on the plat is so designated. Because the designation is clear, the Court declined to consider extrinsic evidence or construction rules. The judgment in favor of Ketchum was reversed, and his attorney’s fee award was vacated.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

HP Ltd. Partnership v. Kenai River Airpark, LLC, 270 P.3d 719 (Alaska 2012): Established the three-step test for deed or plat interpretation—(1) examine the four corners for ambiguity, (2) consider extrinsic evidence if ambiguous, (3) apply rules of construction if still unclear.
Wayson v. Stevenson, 514 P.3d 1263 (Alaska 2022): Reaffirmed that land purchasers must be able to rely on the plain language of plats absent ambiguity.
Sykes v. Lawless, 474 P.3d 636 (Alaska 2020): Clarified the threshold inquiry into a document’s four corners before admitting extrinsic evidence.
Chugach Electric Association v. Calais Co., 410 P.2d 508 (Alaska 1966): Held that utility easements, absent express dedication, remain private.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the three-step interpretive framework de novo:

Four Corners Test: The plat’s legends, labels, and dedication clause define which features are public (“Lot 17 and all roads dedicated for public use”) and which remain private (“all streets, alleys, walks, parks and other open spaces to public or private use as shown”). Because the 20-foot right of way is not expressly marked “public,” it is private.
Extrinsic Evidence (Not Reached): Only if the plat were ambiguous would the Court allow testimony, drafting history, or parol evidence to clarify intent. Here, the unambiguous designation forecloses that step.
Rules of Construction (Not Reached): Default rules—such as presuming dedication to the public in the absence of contrary language—apply only after ambiguity and failure of extrinsic proof. They were unnecessary here.

The superior court’s contrary reasoning—focusing on whether the right of way reached a “dominant tenement,” whether it extended beyond minimum access needs, or whether parallel utility easements implied public access—was rejected as immaterial once the plain dedication language is clear.

Impact

This decision reinforces strict adherence to the “four corners” rule in Alaska plat interpretation:

Land buyers and local governments can rely on the face of recorded plats to determine public versus private dedications.
P laintiffs cannot force courts to admit or rely on extrinsic evidence when dedication language is unambiguous.
Surveyors and municipalities should use precise legends and labels on plats to avoid future disputes.

In future access and easement disputes, parties will be reminded that clear on-plat designations prevail over post hoc evidence or equitable construction doctrines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plat: A map of a subdivision, showing lot lines, roads, easements, and dedications, recorded in the public land records.
Four Corners Rule: Courts interpret deeds and plats by first looking only at the document itself—its text, labels, and legends—before considering outside evidence.
Dominant vs. Servient Tenement: In easement law, the dominant estate benefits from the easement; the servient estate bears it. Here, Ketchum attempted to treat the right of way as serving his land (dominant), but the plat’s face disallowed such a use.
Extrinsic Evidence: Testimony, drafting history, or other outside materials used only if the plat’s language is unclear.
Rules of Construction: Default legal presumptions applied to resolve ambiguity—e.g., ambiguities against the drafter, or presumptions favoring public dedication in some contexts.

Conclusion

Arthur Behm v. Ketchum and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough clarifies that when a subdivision plat unambiguously labels which features are dedicated to public use, everything else remains private. The Alaska Supreme Court’s strict enforcement of the “four corners” principle prevents lower courts from admitting extrinsic evidence or invoking construction rules where no ambiguity exists. This ruling underscores the importance of clear, precise drafting and labeling on subdivision plats to avoid costly litigation over access rights.