Krize v. Krize

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the division of property in the Krizes' divorce. It held that depositing income from Robert Krize's separate-property lease into a joint account was insufficient evidence to transmute future lease income into marital property, and it reversed the valuation of the parties' charter boat business as clearly erroneous. The court also addressed the permissible consideration of virtually certain inheritances in property division and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Depositing lease payments from separate property into a joint account, without evidence of an intent to assign future lease proceeds to the marital estate, is insufficient to transmute future lease income into marital property.
2. The superior court clearly erred by valuing the charter-boat business at $50,000 without reliable evidence or a principled valuation method.
3. A trial court may consider a prospective inheritance in dividing marital property only when the inheritance concerns an immediate family member, is virtually certain rather than merely possible, and is treated as one factor without inordinate weight.
4. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Judy one of the Mexican properties rather than enforcing the parties' uncertain pretrial understanding concerning their division.
5. The superior court considered the statutory health-insurance factor, but on remand Robert may present evidence of his insurance costs, which the superior court must consider in the final property division.

Questions Presented

1. Whether depositing income from Robert's separate-property ground lease into the parties' joint account was sufficient evidence of intent to transmute future lease income into marital property.
2. Whether the superior court clearly erred in valuing Alaska Viking Cruises at $50,000 without a principled valuation method or reliable evidence.
3. Whether a trial court may consider a prospective inheritance when equitably dividing marital property.
4. Whether the superior court erred in dividing the Mexican real estate and in considering the parties' health-insurance circumstances.

Disposition

vacated