Cox v. Floreske, 288 P.3d 1289

Victoria Cox and John Floreske separated in 2007 and divorced in 2009 after 28 years of marriage.
Marital estate was illiquid and worth about $3 million, including three businesses and two subdivisions in Haines.
Superior Court awarded mutual, personal right of first refusal on all property awarded to the other party; it would not survive divorce.
Trial court found an equal division of assets; Finding 11 created lifetime rights of first refusal for both parties on all properties.
Vicky later moved for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(b)(4)-(5), arguing the right of first refusal was void or should be vacated as inequitable.
The superior court denied relief but clarified the right of first refusal is personal to the parties and not to survive them; the court ordered remand to vacate Finding 11.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 60(b)(5) relief should be granted to vacate the right of first refusal.	Cox argues changed circumstances make enforcement inequitable.	Floreske contends no basis to vacate the judgment.	Abuse of discretion; 60(b)(5) relief granted.
Whether Cox's 60(b)(5) motion was timely.	Delay was justified by paying off debt reducing personal liability.	Delay indicates untimely challenge to judgment.	Timeliness recognized; motion timely.

Propst v. Propst, 776 P.2d 780 (Alaska 1989) (changed circumstances and equity considerations in Rule 60(b)(5))
Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070 (Alaska 2011) (context for Rule 60(b)(5) analysis and timing)
Dewey v. Dewey, 886 P.2d 623 (Alaska 1994) (practice and procedure in Rule 60(b) motions)
Odom v. Odom, 141 P.3d 324 (Alaska 2006) (lifetime right of first refusal discussed; distinguishable facts)
Princiotta v. Municipality of Anchorage, 785 P.2d 559 (Alaska 1990) (equitable distribution principles and post-judgment considerations)
Dixon v. Pouncy, 979 P.2d 520 (Alaska 1999) (timeliness of Rule 60(b) challenges after judgment)