Berry v. Berry, 277 P.3d 771

Michael Berry, pro se, appeals a divorce/custody proceeding against April Berry in the Alaska Supreme Court.
The parties separated in June 2009; April filed for divorce on June 16, 2009; first hearing was August 28, 2009.
Between August 28 and September 25, 2009, numerous motions were filed; a scheduling conference was held.
A September 29, 2009 hearing addressed outstanding motions; the trial began June 28, 2010 and extended five days.
April was represented by counsel; Michael represented himself; the court issued various temporary orders and custody rulings during the pendency.
The superior court’s decisions are affirmed in all respects except the attorney’s fees award, which is reversed and remanded for a two-step analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether accelerated briefing violated Rule 77 and due process	Berry argues accelerated briefing violated due process.	Berry did not object; timely objections were waived.	Issue waived; no reversible error found.
Whether temporary orders signed before Michael's response violated due process	Berry contends orders were signed without considering his timely response.	Court ultimately reconsidered; process cured the error.	No due process violation; cure effected.
Whether oral temporary child custody orders at scheduling violated due process	Berry asserts due process requires notice/hearing for custody orders.	Oral orders during pendency are permissible; due process balance does not require notice for temporary orders.	No due process violation; order stayed within statutory authority.
Whether the court erred in relying on the custody investigator's testimony	Berry argues improper reliance on investigator and bias concerns.	Trial court may rely on investigator; deference due to credibility findings.	No error; deference to trial court's credibility determinations affirmed.
Whether the attorney's fees award was proper	Berry challenges the two-step process used to award fees.	Court may award fees based on relative economic situation; misconduct considerations apply.	Attorney's fees order reversed and remanded for proper two-step analysis; property division remanded as needed.

Kowalski v. Kowalski, 806 P.2d 1368 (Alaska 1991) (two-step process required for enhanced fee awards)
Edelman v. Edelman, 61 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2002) (must make explicit findings for enhanced fees; justify deviations)
Dragseth v. Dragseth, 210 P.3d 1206 (Alaska 2009) (divorce fees tied to economic status and misconduct; general rule first)
Mullins v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2010) (harmless error when party later briefed merits on reconsideration)