Sally K. Sloane v. George R. Sloane

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment in a divorce proceeding involving valuation and division of marital property, interim spousal-support arrearages, future medical expenses, bifurcation, travel expenses, and attorney’s fees. The court held that the superior court did not clearly err or abuse its discretion in valuing a business note at ten dollars, awarding Sally Sloane fifty-seven percent of the marital estate, denying additional medical-cost and travel reimbursements, awarding $500 in interest, and limiting attorney’s fees.

Holdings

1. The superior court did not clearly err by valuing the $25,000 CPI note at $10 rather than its face value.
2. The superior court did not abuse its discretion or act clearly unjustly by awarding Sally 57 percent of the marital property.
3. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by declining to require George to pay Sally's COBRA premiums or additional future medical expenses.
4. The superior court properly refused to postpone entry of the divorce decree for three years while dividing the property immediately.
5. The superior court did not err by awarding $500 in interest rather than using Sally's proposed calculation.
6. The superior court did not err by refusing to reimburse Sally for travel and living expenses incurred in attending the Alaska litigation.
7. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Sally $3,186 in attorney's fees and denying additional fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court clearly erred by valuing George's $25,000 note from the sale of Carts and Parts, Inc. at $10.
2. Whether the superior court abused its discretion or acted clearly unjustly by awarding Sally 57 percent rather than a greater share of the marital property.
3. Whether the superior court erred by denying additional amounts for ongoing medical expenses and COBRA premiums.
4. Whether the superior court erred by refusing to bifurcate the divorce and postpone entry of the divorce decree for insurance purposes.
5. Whether the superior court erred by denying reimbursement for Sally's travel and living expenses incurred during litigation.
6. Whether the superior court erred by awarding $500 in interest on interim spousal-support arrearages rather than calculating interest by a specific method.
7. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by awarding Sally only $3,186 in attorney's fees.

Disposition

affirmed