Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070

Michael and Rebecca Cook divorced in 2002; they divided stock in Polar Environmental Technologies, Inc. and Springline Mining and Exploration, Inc. via a partial settlement agreement.
The May 2002 Agreement provided Michael would pay Rebecca $1,000/month for five years, then $2,000/month plus half of any corporate income over $40,000 until the debt was paid, with a 15-year cap on the $2,000/month payments.
The agreement set the principal for Rebecca’s stock portion at $675,000 (reduced from $750,000) and fixed the $2,000/month payments to run for 15 years, with 8% interest.
Rebecca moved in 2008 to reduce the remaining debt to judgment; Michael challenged the interpretation of 2.b and sought relief from obligations.
The superior court held that 2.b was not contingent on profitability, entered judgment for $47,132.46 plus interest, and declined to relieve Michael from obligations; Michael appealed.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s interpretation and judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether paragraph 2.b is contingent on profitability.	Cook contends 2.b is tied to corporate profits; if not profitable, 2.b does not apply.	Cook argues 2.b is contingent on profitability and need not be paid if profits are absent.	Not contingent; 2.b is not dependent on profitability.
Whether the agreement should be rescinded or reformed for mutual mistake of fact.	Cook asserts mutual mistake as to the value of the corporations justifies rescission or reform.	Rebecca contends valuation was a future prediction, not a misbelief warranting relief.	No mutual mistake of fact; mistake as to future value does not void the contract.
Whether unclean hands excused Michael from his obligations.	Cook claims Rebecca’s interference with investors warrants relief under unclean hands.	Rebecca’s conduct was not shown to affect outcomes; unclean hands not established.	No abuse of discretion; unclean hands not proven.
Whether Rule 60(b)(5) or (6) relief should modify prospective effects of the agreement.	Cook seeks relief because the underlying assumptions or equity require modification.	Rebecca argues no equitable grounds to modify; relief denied.	Relief denied under both Rule 60(b)(5) and (6); no extraordinary circumstances.

Burns v. Burns, 157 P.3d 1037 (Alaska 2007) (contract interpretation and property division guidance)
Norton v. Herron, 677 P.2d 877 (Alaska 1984) (deference to trial court credibility and extrinsic evidence)
Hartley v. Hartley, 205 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2009) (contract interpretation in divorce proceedings; extrinsic evidence)
Monzingo v. Alaska Air Group, Inc., 112 P.3d 655 (Alaska 2005) (treatment of ambiguous contract terms and extrinsic evidence)
Mullins v. Oates, 179 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2008) (public policy favoring settlement; standards for modifying settlements)