Milton D. Mellard v. Cathleen C. Mellard

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed a divorce property division involving the parties' retirement accounts, future medical expenses, and attorney's fees. It held that the trial court erred by failing to value Cathleen Mellard's retirement account and remanded for reevaluation of the property division, including equitable treatment of survivorship benefits. The court affirmed the attorney's-fee award and the denial of an allocation for Milton Mellard's future medical expenses.

Holdings

1. A trial court may not assign a zero or no value to a significant marital retirement asset merely because the evidence does not establish its present value; if the court intends to award the parties their respective pensions rather than use QDROs, it should direct the parties or the party with the best access to the evidence to fill the evidentiary gap.
2. On remand, the superior court must devise an equitable method for treating Milton's survivorship election because the election reduced the value of his retirement interest; the court may consider valuing Cathleen's survivorship interest or using QDROs to divide both retirement accounts and survivorship benefits.
3. The $1,500 attorney's-fee award was not an abuse of discretion because the superior court's findings sufficiently indicated that Milton's passivity, failure to make disclosures, and failure to participate in preparing the property spreadsheet caused unnecessary litigation expense and supported an enhanced fee award.
4. Milton waived his claim for an allocation of future medical expenses because he presented neither evidence nor argument on that issue to the superior court and did not request an unequal property distribution based on his medical condition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court erred by failing to place a value on Cathleen's retirement account before dividing the marital estate.
2. Whether the superior court could value and credit Cathleen's survivorship benefit in Milton's retirement account as part of the property division.
3. Whether the $1,500 enhanced attorney's-fee award was an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether Milton was entitled to an allocation for future medical expenses despite failing to present evidence or argument on that issue in the superior court.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded