Where Alaska Keeps the Records That Locate a Person
Two of the vendors ranking for this phrase route Anchorage through a web address containing the words “anchorage county”. There is no Anchorage County. There is no county in Alaska at all, and so there is no county recorder, because recording here is a State function: the Department of Natural Resources runs 34 recording districts and staffs them from exactly two public counters, in Anchorage and in Fairbanks. Case files sit in a separate unified state court system whose public index is deliberately narrower than the record behind it, with a 1990 floor at one end and a court rule stripping named categories out at the other. A search built on the wrong custodian in this state does not come back slow. It comes back empty, and empty reads like an answer. Everything we touch in this state is either a record the public may read at the Recorder’s own terminal or data held under licence, and the lawful reason behind a file is settled before the file is opened. This is a records-research firm, and none of what follows is legal advice.
The Short Version
Alaska skip tracing has no county layer. Deeds, liens and recorded judgments go to the State Recorder inside the Department of Natural Resources, which runs 34 recording districts from two counters, indexed from 1970. Case files sit in one unified Alaska Court System, whose CourtView index holds nothing comprehensive before 1990 and loses named case categories to Administrative Rule 40(a). Two constraints sit under all of it: the material is public record plus licensed data and nothing else, and a lawful reason for the search is settled before the search happens. Nothing taken from inside a private financial account. What you have just read is general information about how Alaska keeps its records, not legal advice.
The Recorder Is the State, and It Has Two Counters
34 districts, one agency, and a consolidation the rest of the internet has not noticed.
Start with the thing that breaks every imported assumption. In almost every other state a deed goes to a local office – a recorder, a register of deeds, a clerk, a prothonotary, a town clerk in the New England states that record municipally, some local elected official with a counter in a courthouse. Alaska has no counties, so it has none of that. Recording is a State function carried out by the Department of Natural Resources, and the whole of Alaska’s official public record of land and liens is administered from one agency.
The Recorder’s Office describes its own remit without ambiguity: “The State Recorder’s office oversees 34 recording districts that record, index, and archive all of the documents that create the Official Public Record of the State of Alaska. Approximately 1,000 new documents are recorded and added to the record each day.”
Two offices, not five, and not six
Here the published guidance and the agency disagree, and it is worth being exact because the disagreement costs people trips. Summarised answers and directory sites still describe the districts as being served by five or six offices, naming Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Palmer and Kenai. The agency’s own pages say two. The Recorder’s Office home page states that “the statewide recording system consists of 34 separate recording districts serviced by a total of two separate offices located throughout Alaska.” The About-the-Process page says it twice more – the public can search “at any DNR recording office throughout the state (Anchorage and Fairbanks)”, and copies are made “in one of our two offices”.
The district contact list settles it structurally rather than by assertion, because it assigns every district to an address. Twenty-two districts are served from 550 West 7th Avenue in Anchorage: Aleutian Islands, Anchorage, Bristol Bay, Chitina, Cordova, Haines, Homer, Iliamna, Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Kvichak, Palmer, Petersburg, Seldovia, Seward, Sitka, Skagway, Talkeetna, Valdez and Wrangell. Twelve are served from 3700 Airport Way in Fairbanks: Barrow, Bethel, Cape Nome, Fairbanks, Ft. Gibbon, Kotzebue, Kuskokwim, Manley Hot Springs, Mt. McKinley, Nenana, Nulato and Rampart. Twenty-two and twelve is thirty-four, which is how we know the list is the whole list rather than a sample of it. Both offices open 08:00 to 15:30 Monday to Friday, and both close on the second Wednesday of every month from 09:00 to 10:30 for training.
The three limits that shape an Alaska title-side search
- The index floor is 1970. The grantor-grantee alphabetical index and the location index “reflect documents recorded from 1970 to current. Searching for information prior to 1970 requires a search of Historic Books.” A 1968 conveyance is real, public and entirely off-screen.
- Districts do not reach into each other. “Each district is responsible for its individual jurisdiction only.” A subject who held property near Homer and later near Nenana has two filings in two districts served by two different buildings, and neither search finds the other by itself.
- Staff will not research for you. “Due to staffing limitations and liability risks, recording staff are not authorized to perform in-depth research of this type.” The counter will show you the terminal. It will not work the index on your behalf.
The UCC file is a separate search, and it says so
Anyone tracing business assets in Alaska needs one more line from the same source. The Uniform Commercial Code Central File in Anchorage maintains a statewide library and index of filings creating a security interest in personal property – but the office states plainly that “the UCC Central Index does not include a cross-reference of UCC’s filed at the district level.” A statewide UCC search and a district-level search are two different searches returning two different sets, and treating either as complete is how a secured interest goes unnoticed. Where that bears on an enforcement question, the mechanics sit separately in our note on Alaska judgment collection.
Watch: No County, Two Counters
How an Alaska records request is routed before it is sent.
Watch Overview
The Public Court Index Is Narrower Than the Record, on Purpose
A 1990 floor at one end, and a court rule removing cases at the other.
Alaska runs a single unified court system with no local trial courts underneath it, so there is no municipal or town layer to chase separately. Everything civil and criminal moves through the Superior Court and the District Court, and the public window on all of it is CourtView. That sounds like a simplification, and in one sense it is. The complication is in what CourtView is permitted to show.
Nothing comprehensive before 1990, and the back-file is not public
The Court System states the floor in its own words: “There is no comprehensive case information available for any trial court location before 1990.” Before that, courts kept an alphabetical index of parties on paper cards carrying nothing but a case number and a name. Courts have been converting those cards into a statewide electronic Historical Index as time allows – and here is the part that matters operationally: because that index includes confidential cases, it “is not available to the public for research. You must ask a clerk to search it for you.”
So the pre-1990 layer is not merely older. It is behind a human being. Until every card is converted, the Court advises that a complete search of that era requires both the paper cards and the electronic Historical Index, which means contacting each court rather than running one query. Any 1980s Alaska history that turns up in a CourtView result did so because the case became active again and was entered, not because that decade is covered.
Administrative Rule 40(a) takes cases back out
This is the part that separates an Alaska search from an assumption. Alaska has a court rule that affirmatively removes categories of case from the public index. The Court’s own summary of Administrative Rule 40(a) lists them, and several are exactly the categories a locate would otherwise lean on:
- Cases designated confidential or sealed by statute, rule or court order under Administrative Rule 37.6 – Rule 40(a)(1).
- Foreign domestic violence protective orders filed under AS 18.66.140 – Rule 40(a)(2).
- Certain cases dismissed at the initial hearing for lack of evidence or a charging-document error – Rule 40(a)(3) through (8).
- Certain closed civil protective order cases – domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault – in which no protective order was issued – Rule 40(a)(9) and (10).
- Certain criminal cases where a suspended imposition of sentence was completed and the conviction set aside under AS 12.55.085, with all other charges resolved – Rule 40(a)(13).
- Certain alcohol offences charged against a defendant under 21 and filed separately – Rule 40(a)(14).
- Certain convictions for possessing under an ounce of marijuana where the defendant was 21 or older and had no other charge in the case – Rule 40(a)(15).
On top of the rule sits a statute. AS 22.35.030 provides that the Court System “may not publish a court record of a criminal case on a publicly available website if 60 days has elapsed from the date of acquittal or dismissal” in the four situations it then enumerates. And a further list of case types is never online at all: delinquency, child in need of aid, adoption, mental commitment, alcohol commitment, emancipation, medical emergency and minor settlement.
Read together, these produce a specific and quite unusual failure mode. In most states a blank court search means you searched badly or the person was never sued. In Alaska it can additionally mean the case existed, concluded, and was then removed by operation of a rule. An Alaska clean screen is not a finding, and we do not report it as one. If a blank CourtView result is where your own search stopped, order an Alaska skip trace and we run the court index, a clerk request for the pre-1990 layer and the recording districts as separate searches.
One small trap in the case numbers themselves
For a period in the 1980s, domestic relations matters carried the suffix DR and domestic violence matters carried DV. Most were changed to CI on conversion, but the Court notes that a few could not be, because a CI case already held that number. Its advice is to run the search twice, once on CI and once on DR or DV. That is a five-minute cost that occasionally recovers a file nobody else found.
The Attachment List Almost Nobody Reads
Alaska publishes, by name, every creditor writ served on a Permanent Fund Dividend.
Every September the State distributes the Permanent Fund Dividend, and every September creditors serve writs of execution against it. What is remarkable, and specific to this state, is that the Court System then publishes the results as a public document – five alphabetical volumes covering A-E, F-J, K-O, P-T and U-Z, plus a separate Process Server Cross Reference, going back through the 2008-2010 set.
The list carries three things: “dividends seized by writ of execution”, “unsuccessful attempts to seize the dividend by a writ of execution”, and PFD assignments in which a person voluntarily signs the dividend over to the court. The unsuccessful attempts are the interesting half. A public register of failed writs, name by name and year by year, tells a researcher something that ordinarily nobody outside the creditor’s own file would know. For a creditor whose live problem is where a judgment debtor is now living, the seizure entries carry the locating value: a dividend actually taken means the Division matched that person to an applicant of record for the year, and dividend eligibility runs on Alaska residency, so the entry dates the subject to this state rather than to a mailing address. A reason-A entry is nearly as useful in reverse, because it says three identifiers did not match any applicant that year at all.
Why a writ fails, and what each reason actually tells you
The Court publishes the failure codes and the regulation behind them, which is why this section can say what a blank in column six means rather than guessing:
- Reason A – the identifiers did not match. The information the creditor supplied “did not match any applicant for this year’s dividend”. Alaska’s dividend regulations “require a three-point match between the information dividend applicants provide and the information creditors provide. Any three of the following four identifiers must match: the debtor’s last name, first name, date of birth or social security number. See 15 AAC 23.213(d).” A reason A is therefore ambiguous in a very informative way: it can mean the person did not apply that year, or it can mean the creditor’s identity data was wrong. Those are two different next steps, and knowing that the threshold is three of four is what lets you tell them apart.
- Reason B – the Division cannot say. Confidentiality regulation 15 AAC 23.253(b)(4) prevents the PFD Division explaining. The Court offers the two ordinary explanations: the applicant was not eligible, or a higher-priority claim reached the money first. The order of priority is set by AS 43.23.065(b) and (c).
The exclusions matter as much as the contents
The list is not a complete picture of what was taken from a dividend, and the Court says so. It excludes assignments to other government agencies, writs issued by federal courts, and attachments by the IRS, by Child Support Services, by the Commission on Postsecondary Education for student loans, by the Department of Health and Social Services for public assistance overpayments and court-ordered treatment reimbursements, and by the Department of Labor under the Employment Security Act. A person absent from the list may still have had the entire dividend intercepted by an agency that does not appear on it.
There is also a timing wrinkle worth planning around. About 96 per cent of PFD applications are processed in time for the September distribution; a few thousand are still under review afterwards, and those are paid out individually as review completes. Attachments landing on those later payments are not in the September list at all – the Court directs enquirers to the process server, the court, or the assignment record depending on how the writ was served. Where a client’s underlying question is what a creditor may lawfully reach in the first place, that belongs with Alaska asset exemptions and Alaska wage garnishment rules, both of which are general legal information rather than advice.
One more court-side resource: the public administrator
Alaska appoints a public administrator in each judicial district, drawn from judicial officers or court employees and appointed by the presiding judge. Under AS 22.20.410 through.440 that official administers the estate of a deceased person “when administration is required by law and no one else applies to be the administrator within 30 days after the date of death”. The Court System publishes who holds the post in each district and which communities each covers. For heir work in a state where families are frequently spread across a thousand miles of coast and river, an estate that fell to a public administrator is a documented starting point rather than a dead end.
Boroughs, Census Areas, and the Places With No Government at All
Thirty jurisdictions, and a large share of the state inside none of them.
Alaska is divided into 30 boroughs and census areas, and the two halves of that phrase are not interchangeable. A borough is an organised local government that levies taxes and keeps records. A census area is a statistical outline the Census Bureau draws across territory that has no borough government – it exists on a map and in a data file, and there is no office behind it. The territory outside any organised borough is the Unorganized Borough, and it is most of the state’s land.
For records work that produces a distinction with real consequences. In a borough there is a local government that may hold assessment rolls, permits, business licences and utility accounts. Across a census area in the Unorganized Borough there is no such layer, so the record trail narrows to State agencies, the recording district, the court, tribal and village entities, and whatever commercial data exists – which in low-density areas is thin and often stale. It also caps what an asset search behind a judgment can honestly claim out there: with no borough assessment roll, no local business licence and no borough permit file to corroborate what somebody holds, a rural Alaska asset picture stands on the recording district, the UCC files and the dividend record alone, and the report names that as the extent of the coverage instead of letting a thin result read as a clean one.
Where the population actually is
- Municipality of Anchorage, 289,600. A unified home-rule municipality rather than a city inside a county, which is why the “Anchorage County” that competitor web addresses invent has never existed. It is also its own recording district and the seat of the State Recorder’s Office and the UCC Central File.
- Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 117,613. The Palmer and Talkeetna recording districts fall on this side of the state, and Mat-Su is where a great deal of Anchorage-area residential movement goes. A subject who has “left Anchorage” has very often gone about forty miles north and changed recording district without changing region.
- Fairbanks North Star Borough, 94,951. The other counter. Twelve recording districts are served from here, which makes Fairbanks the access point for the entire northern and western half of the state’s land records.
- Kenai Peninsula Borough, 61,259. Covered by no fewer than four separate recording districts – Kenai, Homer, Seldovia and Seward – all of them served from Anchorage. One borough, four district searches.
- City and Borough of Juneau, 31,572. The state capital, a unified city-borough, and its own recording district, though the counter for it is in Anchorage.
- Bethel Census Area, 18,237. No borough government. Served by the Bethel recording district out of Fairbanks, several hundred air miles away.
- Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 13,677 and Kodiak Island Borough, 12,654. Both with their own recording districts, both administered from Anchorage.
The borough boundary is not the district boundary
The two maps do not line up, and assuming they do is a common and expensive error. The Kenai Peninsula Borough alone spans four recording districts. Conversely, a single recording district can cover territory belonging to no borough. So “which borough is the subject in” and “which district holds the deed” are separate questions with separate answers, and the Recorder’s Office maintains a district map and an interactive district finder precisely because the answer is not obvious from an address. We resolve district before we search, and we say in the report which districts were run and which were not. Where the underlying task is simply placing a person rather than a document, the broader approach sits on our finding someone in Alaska page.
Which Alaska Custodian Holds What
Route the request before you send it, because there is no county to fall back on.
This is the routing table an Alaska file is opened against. The middle column names the custodian that actually holds the document. The right column names the thing that most often makes the request come back empty when nobody checked it first.
| What you want | Who holds it | What catches people out |
|---|---|---|
| Deeds, mortgages, liens, recorded judgments | DNR State Recorder’s Office, in the correct recording district 34 Districts | Index starts 1970. Districts do not cross-reference each other, and only two counters exist. |
| UCC filings on personal property | UCC Central File, Anchorage – and separately the district | The central index carries no cross-reference to district-level filings. Two searches. |
| Civil and criminal case files | Alaska Court System, through CourtView | No comprehensive data before 1990, and Administrative Rule 40(a) removes named categories. |
| Pre-1990 court history | Paper index cards plus a non-public electronic Historical Index | A clerk has to run it. The public cannot search the Historical Index at all. |
| Creditor writs against a dividend | Court System PFD attachment lists, five volumes a year | Excludes IRS, child support, student loan, public assistance and federal writs entirely. |
| Estates where no relative stepped forward | The public administrator for that judicial district | Only engages when nobody else applies within 30 days of death – AS 22.20.410 to.440. |
| Local assessment and permit records | The borough, where one exists | Across the Unorganized Borough there is no borough government to ask. |
Six Ways an Alaska Search Comes Back Wrong
Every one of them is a filing fact, not a weather fact.
A County Office That Does Not Exist
Requests addressed to an Alaska county recorder go nowhere. Recording is a State function through 34 districts.
One District Searched, a State Assumed
Each district covers its own jurisdiction only. A Kenai Peninsula subject may need four district searches.
A Removed Case Read as No Case
Administrative Rule 40(a) and AS 22.35.030 strip categories out of the public index. Blank is not proof.
The 1970 Floor Mistaken for an Absence
Anything recorded earlier sits in Historic Books rather than the index, and nobody is warned before they look.
A Village Address Sent to a Borough
Much of Alaska is Unorganized Borough with no local government layer at all to receive a records request.
A Central UCC Search Called Complete
The statewide UCC index carries no cross-reference to district-level filings. The second search never gets run.
The Order an Alaska File Runs In
District before borough, custodian before query, and the removals accounted for.
Resolve the Recording District
The borough map and the district map are different maps. Which of the 34 districts a known address falls into is settled first, using the Recorder’s own district finder, and written down.
Pin the Individual, Not the Name
Small communities with deep family ties produce namesakes across generations at a rate that surprises people from elsewhere. No address counts until the identity behind it is confirmed against a second document.
Run Both Court Layers
CourtView for 1990 forward, and a clerk request where the era or the case type puts the file outside it. Anything the rules could have removed is described as unknown rather than as absent.
Check the Dividend Volumes
Where the matter is an existing debt, the annual PFD attachment lists are read for the subject’s name, and a reason code A or B is interpreted against the three-point match rule rather than guessed at.
Who Sends Us Alaska Work
Six recurring requests, and what each turns on in this state.
Counsel in Civil Matters
Whether a silent CourtView result is a removal or an absence
Enforcement After Judgment
District recordings read alongside the dividend attachment volumes
Servers Needing an Address
A reachable physical location, not only a mailing point
Heirs to an Unclaimed Estate
Files that fell to a district public administrator after thirty days
Lenders Holding a Bad Note
A balance already in default, never a pending application
Landlords After a Move-Out
A former tenant and an unpaid balance, not a screening check
Two Things We Will Not Do in Alaska
Stated against this state’s own institutions rather than as general terms.
We are not a consumer reporting agency and this is not a screening product
Lenders and rental owners appear in the audience grid a few screens up, so this needs stating flatly rather than in a footnote. People Locator Skip Tracing is not a consumer reporting agency, and an Alaska research file from us is not a consumer report. Four kinds of decision are therefore off-limits to it – both while we hold it and after you have it: granting or refusing a tenancy, hiring or promoting somebody, advancing credit, and writing insurance. Tenant screening and employment screening are the two people ask about most, and both are outside this. Congress put those decisions behind a regulated product that must carry adverse-action notices and give the person a way to contest what it says, and that product is not something this firm builds. An Alaska landlord or lender comes to us at the opposite end of the sequence: the tenant or borrower has already gone, and the debt or judgment already exists. If the person is standing in front of you today with an application, the honest answer is a screening provider, and we will give you that answer instead of an invoice.
Nothing from inside a private financial account
The Recorder’s Office says on its own site that its records “are public information and may be viewed by, or copied for anyone.” That is the whole of our access route in this state, alongside data we hold under licence. Nobody at this firm rings the Anchorage or Fairbanks counter, a court clerk, a village council, an employer or a relative under an assumed identity, and nobody manufactures a reason in order to be handed a document. Bank and brokerage account contents are outside what we obtain and outside what we report; where a matter truly needs what is inside an account, the instrument is a subpoena or a court order your attorney applies for, and no research product substitutes for one. The lawful reason a request exists is settled and written down before an Alaska file is opened, so that a year later the question of why the search happened has an answer on paper rather than in somebody’s memory.
The Requests We Decline, and What Alaska’s Own Rule Says
A court rule here removes protective-order files from the public index. That is not an obstacle to route around.
Administrative Rule 40(a)(9) and (10) remove from Alaska’s public case index certain closed civil protective order cases – domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault – in which no protective order was issued. Rule 40(a)(2) removes foreign domestic violence protective orders filed under AS 18.66.140. The Alaska Court System does not explain those provisions on the page we read, and it does not need to. A court that deletes the record of a protective-order petition from public view has said what it thinks about that record being browsable.
So those requests get declined. If what is being asked for is the whereabouts of a former partner, of somebody who petitioned an Alaska court for protection, or of anyone who appears to have moved specifically to be out of the requester’s reach, the answer is no – no to the full request, no to a trimmed-down version of it, and no to passing it on to a firm that would take it. Nothing about the phrasing changes that, nor the reason offered, nor the account given of how the two people are related. A page that has just spent two thousand words explaining how Alaska records can be worked has an obligation to be equally plain about the requests it will not work them for.
Why this matters more here, not less
Two features of the state raise the stakes rather than lowering them. The first is scale in reverse: in a community of a few hundred people, a single confirmed address is not a lead, it is a location. The second is the thinness of the alternative record. Across the Unorganized Borough there is no borough government generating the everyday paperwork that elsewhere gives a person some ordinary, harmless visibility. When someone in rural Alaska has become hard to reach, that condition is more likely to be deliberate and more likely to be load-bearing for their safety than the same silence would be in a dense state. We treat an unusually thin trail as a reason to ask harder questions about the purpose, not as a puzzle to solve faster.
If you are the person somebody may be looking for
We are the wrong firm to ask, and we would rather say so than sell you anything. The route runs through a local domestic violence or victim services programme and through the court, which can address what appears in a case file and what does not. We do not advise on safety planning and we are not qualified to. Nothing on this page should be read as guidance on protecting your own address; it is a description of how public records are organised in this state.
Service of process is a different question, and one we support
None of this amounts to turning away family-adjacent work. Where a server arrives with an Alaska case number, a named party and an attorney standing behind the request, the task is one the court itself set in motion, and finding the party is the outcome the court is waiting for. The distinction we apply is between a purpose that a third party could check against a court file and a purpose whose whole object is to undo somebody’s decision to be further away. Which of the two it is gets asked and answered in writing before an Alaska file opens – and where the real question underneath is how much time a claim has left before any of it stops mattering, that belongs in our note on the Alaska debt collection statute of limitations.
What an Alaska Report Names
Every finding carries the custodian that produced it – which of the 34 recording districts, which court, which year’s dividend volume – so the same document can be pulled again without us. Districts we did not run are listed as not run, because in a state where districts do not cross-reference each other, silence about coverage is misleading. Where a trail falls behind 1970 on the recording side or 1990 on the court side, the report says that in words instead of showing a blank. Where a category of case could have been removed under Administrative Rule 40(a), the report says unknown rather than none. No source outside the public record and our licensed data ever enters it, no Alaska file is opened until the lawful reason for it is written down, and that has been the standing arrangement here since 2004.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is the county recorder in Alaska?
Nobody, because Alaska has no counties. Recording is a State function performed by the Recorder’s Office inside the Department of Natural Resources, which oversees 34 recording districts covering the whole state. The agency states that those 34 districts are serviced by a total of two separate offices, in Anchorage and Fairbanks – 22 districts administered from 550 West 7th Avenue in Anchorage and 12 from 3700 Airport Way in Fairbanks. Several widely-repeated summaries still say five or six offices; the agency’s own pages say two, and its district contact list assigns every district to one of the two addresses.
How far back do Alaska land records go online?
The statewide grantor-grantee alphabetical index and the location index reflect documents recorded from 1970 to current. The Recorder’s Office states that searching for information prior to 1970 requires a search of Historic Books, which is a physical rather than an online exercise. It also states that recording staff are not authorised to perform in-depth research of that kind, citing staffing limitations and liability risks. A pre-1970 Alaska conveyance is entirely real and entirely public; it is simply not on a screen, and a search that assumes otherwise reports a false absence.
Why did a case disappear from Alaska CourtView?
Because a rule or a statute required it. Administrative Rule 40(a) removes several categories from the public index, including sealed and confidential cases, foreign domestic violence protective orders filed under AS 18.66.140, certain cases dismissed at the initial hearing, certain closed protective order cases where no order was issued, set-aside convictions after a completed suspended imposition of sentence, certain under-21 alcohol offences, and certain marijuana possession convictions. Separately, AS 22.35.030 bars publication of a criminal record on a public website once 60 days have passed from a qualifying acquittal or dismissal. A blank result in Alaska is therefore not proof that nothing happened.
Can I search Alaska court records from before 1990?
Not directly. The Alaska Court System states that there is no comprehensive case information available for any trial court location before 1990. Earlier years were kept as paper index cards holding only a case number and a party name. Courts are converting those cards into a statewide electronic Historical Index, but because that index contains confidential cases it is not available to the public for research – a clerk has to search it for you. Until conversion is complete, a thorough pre-1990 search means both the cards and the electronic index, court by court.
Is there a public list of creditor attachments in Alaska?
Yes, and it is unusual. The Alaska Court System publishes annual PFD attachment lists in five alphabetical volumes covering A-E through U-Z, plus a Process Server Cross Reference, with sets available back through 2008-2010. They record dividends seized by writ of execution, unsuccessful attempts to seize a dividend, and voluntary PFD assignments to the court. They exclude federal writs and attachments by the IRS, Child Support Services, the Commission on Postsecondary Education, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Labor, so absence from the list does not mean a dividend was untouched.
What does reason code A mean on the PFD attachment list?
It means the identifying information the creditor supplied did not match any applicant for that year’s dividend. Alaska’s dividend regulations require a three-point match between what applicants provide and what creditors provide: any three of the debtor’s last name, first name, date of birth or social security number must match, under 15 AAC 23.213(d). Reason B means the claim failed for a reason the Division is barred from explaining by 15 AAC 23.253(b)(4) – commonly either ineligibility or a higher-priority claim, with the priority order set by AS 43.23.065(b) and (c).
How do you search a place with no borough government?
By dropping the local layer from the plan rather than pretending it exists. Alaska has 30 boroughs and census areas, and a census area is a Census Bureau outline over territory in the Unorganized Borough, with no borough government behind it. Where there is no borough there are no borough assessment rolls, permits or licences, so the record trail narrows to the relevant recording district, the Alaska Court System, State agencies, tribal and village entities and whatever commercial data exists. We say which of those returned something and which did not, rather than describing a thin result as a complete one.
Will you help find someone who left to get away from somebody?
No. Alaska’s own Administrative Rule 40(a) removes certain closed domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault protective order cases from the public index, and removes foreign protective orders filed under AS 18.66.140. We are not going to be the route around a decision like that. A request that reads as an effort to reach a former partner, a protective-order petitioner, or anyone who has deliberately moved out of somebody’s reach gets declined here, and the wording it arrives in does not change that. Serving papers is the separate case: an Alaska case number, a named party and an attorney behind the request describe a task the court set going, and that work we take.
Open an Alaska File
Send the name, whatever address history exists even if it is only a village or a borough, and the purpose the research is meant to serve. We will resolve which of the 34 recording districts apply before searching anything, run the court index for 1990 forward and say plainly where a rule could have removed what we did not find, read the dividend attachment volumes where an existing debt is the matter, and name every district we did not run. Where enough arrives to work with, a first read normally reaches you within 24 hours. Prefer to talk the matter over before committing it to a file? Get in touch and we will tell you honestly whether Alaska records are likely to answer it.
Start Your Request →
