Day v. Williams, 285 P.3d 256

Day and Williams married in 1993, separated in 2007, have no children, and signed a prenup outlining unequal shares subject to modification by equities.
Valuation of Valley Paint Center asset (business and land) changed from $151,000 at start to $350,332 at trial, with active appreciation splitting some value to marital property.
Day, with health issues including eye problems and corneal transplant, had significantly lower earning capacity than Williams.
Trial court awarded Day a 50-50 division of marital assets, found Day employable, and denied spousal support, while also addressing Day’s use of funds post-separation.
Day withdrew about $33,548 post-separation for living expenses; trial court offset these funds against Day’s share, impacting the final distribution.
On reconsideration, the court ordered Day to refinance the duplex or sell with contingent sale; it remains unclear whether the duplex was revalued on reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 50-50 division was justified	Day contends factors support an unequal split favoring her.	Williams argues equal division falls within trial court discretion.	Remanded for additional findings to justify equal division.
Whether Day was properly found employable	Day argues health issues impair employability and should affect division.	Court deemed Day employable despite limitations.	Court's employability finding remanded for reevaluation.
Whether funds spent post-separation can be recaptured in property	Spent funds should not be recaptured as interim support and should be valued near trial date.	Offset against final distribution is permissible and warranted.	Reversed as to recapture treatment; remand for proper findings.
Whether the duplex valuation/reconsideration order was proper	Court must clarify if duplex was revalued and how sale proceeds affect 50-50 split.	Order contemplated refinancing or contingent sale with equalization.	Remanded for clarification and to explain sale costs, proceeds, and 50-50 goal.

Fortson v. Fortson, 131 P.3d 451 (Alaska 2006) (affirms broad discretion in property division and need for factual findings)
Miller v. Miller, 105 P.3d 1136 (Alaska 2005) (presumption of equal division; need to justify deviations)
Tollefsen v. Tollefsen, 981 P.2d 568 (Alaska 1999) (limits on adjustments without considering costs of sale and repairs)
Korn v. Korn, 46 P.3d 1021 (Alaska 2002) (valuation timing and dissipation considerations in recapture)
Ethelbah v. Walker, 225 P.3d 1082 (Alaska 2009) (discusses evidentiary standards and reliance on trial court findings)