Kendre Jones v. Vieanna Jones

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that federal law does not prevent enforcement of a negotiated property-settlement provision requiring a former husband to pay his former wife $1,200 per month if his military retirement benefits are reduced or replaced by disability benefits. The court affirmed the superior court’s order requiring payment of the monthly amount and $16,800 in arrears. It also rejected arguments based on the law of the case, unconscionability, and laches.

Holdings

1. The indemnity provision was unambiguous and applied when Kendre received an award of disability compensation that reduced Vieanna's $1,200 monthly payment. The provision required Kendre to indemnify Vieanna for the reduction.
2. Federal law does not preclude enforcing one spouse's negotiated promise to pay the other a fixed monthly sum, even when the funds used to make the payment are military disability benefits.
3. The superior court did not abuse its discretion by revisiting enforcement of the agreement because doing so corrected a clear error constituting a manifest injustice.
4. Enforcing the indemnity provision was not unconscionable based on Kendre's disability, alleged lack of understanding, or changed financial circumstances.
5. Kendre waived his laches argument by failing to raise it in the superior court, and the superior court did not decide the case on an unpled legal theory because Vieanna's filings expressly sought enforcement of the indemnity provision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the indemnity provision unambiguously required Kendre to pay Vieanna $1,200 per month after his military retirement benefits were converted to disability benefits.
2. Whether federal law, including Mansell v. Mansell and Howell v. Howell, prohibited enforcement of the negotiated indemnity provision.
3. Whether the superior court violated the law of the case doctrine by enforcing the agreement after initially denying Vieanna's motion to enforce.
4. Whether enforcing the indemnity provision was unconscionable.
5. Whether Kendre waived his laches argument by failing to raise it below and whether the superior court relied on an unpled legal theory.

Disposition

affirmed