it would be unjust for the estate to retain any benefit it might receive, we find no merit to the Crittells’ unjust enrichment claim. IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, we AFFIRM the superior court’s award of attorney’s fees. 1 . Crittell v. Bingo, 36 P.3d 634, 636-37 (Alaska 2001). 2 . Id. at 637-38. 3 . Id. at 647-52 (appendix containing superior court’s findings). 4 . Id. at 641-42. 5 . Id. at 642. 6 . Id. 7 . Id. at 636, 643. 8 . Id. at 643. 9 . The Crittells make parallel arguments regarding the trial court's award of Rule 79 costs. Because the Crittells neither appealed the cost award in Crittell I nor adequately raised the issue on remand, the Crittells have waived any claim as to costs. See State Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n v. Carlson, 65 P.3d 851, 873-74 (Alaska 2003) (<HOLDING>); Brandon v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 28 P.3d 269,
holding an issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding issue waived because it was not mentioned in brief but was only raised in notice of appeal holding that the caldwell claim is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal but was not holding that state had waived argument because it could have been raised in an earlier appeal but was not and because it fell outside the scope of remand