Faris v. Taylor

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed a divorce property-division order involving the date of separation, classification and valuation of marital property, pension division, and recapture of post-separation retirement payments. The court affirmed most of the superior court’s rulings, including the 2014 separation date, treatment of the Portland home as marital property, valuation of the Juneau home, and use of a QDRO. It vacated the recapture decision and remanded for specific factual findings concerning dissipation, waste, conversion, and whether the funds remained at the time of trial.

Holdings

1. The date of separation is determined through a fact-specific inquiry into when the marriage terminated as a joint enterprise or when the parties ceased functioning economically as a single unit; the superior court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the parties separated in 2014.
2. The Portland home purchased in 2006 was marital property because the parties' marriage did not terminate until 2014.
3. The superior court did not clearly err by valuing the Juneau property based on its existing, unsubdivided condition rather than on a hypothetical future subdivision.
4. The superior court did not err by dividing Faris's pension payments between the parties rather than awarding Faris 100 percent of the CSRS payments under the prior settlement agreement.
5. The superior court acted within its discretion by using a QDRO to divide the parties' future pension income when the evidence did not permit an accurate valuation of the pensions.
6. A superior court abuses its discretion by ordering recapture of marital assets no longer existing at trial without specific evidentiary findings of dissipation, waste, or conversion to a non-marital form, including findings regarding whether the assets still existed and whether conversion was intended to deprive the marital estate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court used the correct legal standard and adequately supported its determination that the parties separated in 2014 rather than 2004.
2. Whether the Portland, Oregon home purchased in 2006 was marital property.
3. Whether the superior court clearly erred in valuing the Juneau home at $450,000 rather than adopting a speculative higher value based on a possible subdivision.
4. Whether the superior court erred by dividing Faris's CSRS pension rather than awarding her all of its payments under the prior settlement agreement.
5. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by using a QDRO to divide future pension income when the pension valuations were conflicting.
6. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by recapturing post-separation pension payments without specific findings concerning dissipation, waste, conversion, or the continued existence of the funds.

Disposition

vacated