Walter A. Fernau v. Elizabeth A.F. Rowdon

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed awards of child support, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney's fees in a divorce proceeding involving hybrid physical custody and a substantial disparity in the parties' earning capacities. The court held that the trial court properly relied on historical income, applied a variance under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(c), and awarded rehabilitative alimony to support the wife's pursuit of a teaching credential. The court found certain income-calculation errors harmless under the circumstances.

Holdings

1. The superior court did not clearly err by relying on Fernau's historical earnings and finding that he remained in the highest income category for child-support purposes; the temporary reduction in his income while establishing a practice did not require using the lower projected income.
2. Alimony paid by a party to the child-support order should not be included in the recipient's income for purposes of calculating child support. Rental income or proceeds from the Fairbanks property should have been included, but both errors were harmless because they approximately offset one another and the award was ultimately varied under Rule 90.3(c).
3. The superior court properly varied the hybrid-custody child-support award under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(c) because the hybrid custody arrangement, the additional after-school time with Rowdon, the disparity in earning capacity, and Rowdon's need to pursue education while caring for three children constituted unusual circumstances making a variance just and proper.
4. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by awarding time-limited rehabilitative alimony conditioned on Rowdon's enrollment in a teacher-certification program.
5. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Rowdon partial attorney's fees because the parties were not in comparable economic situations and the property division did not place them on an equal economic footing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court clearly erred in determining the parties' income and earning capacities for child-support purposes.
2. Whether alimony received from the party obligated to pay it must be included in the recipient's income under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3.
3. Whether the superior court properly varied the hybrid-custody child-support amount under Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(c).
4. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by awarding rehabilitative alimony.
5. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by awarding Rowdon partial attorney's fees.

Disposition

affirmed