Dundas v. Dundas
2015 Alas. LEXIS 152
| Alaska | 2015Background
- Dea and James Dundas married in 1997, operated a B&B and construction/fishing businesses, and accumulated roughly $1.7 million in assets; Dea filed for divorce in January 2011.
- The parties mediated on October 25, 2012 and agreed to treat existing account funds as marital and future earnings as separate; they did not finalize the divorce until February 2014 after a multi-day trial.
- Dea sought 65% of marital property, rehabilitative and reorientation alimony, and attorney fees; James sought equal division and opposed alimony and fees.
- Financial expert Sheila Miller prepared bank-account valuations and cash‑flow analyses treating income 2011–2013 largely as marital; the superior court accepted Miller’s bank-account valuations but rejected her cash-flow figures.
- The superior court chose October 25, 2012 as the date of economic separation, divided most marital property 50/50, awarded Dea the B&B and pit property (but did not account for tax consequences), ordered James to pay child support from Oct. 25, 2012 onward with credits for marital expenses he paid, and required Dea to pay all visitation travel costs if she relocated.
- On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the separation date but remanded for further findings on multiple valuation, tax, alimony, child‑support credit, PERS health benefit, and attorney‑fee issues; it reversed the order making Dea pay all visitation expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Dundas (Dea) Argument | Dundas (James) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic separation date | Court should have used divorce date or other date advocated at trial | Oct. 25, 2012 (mediation) reflects end of economic unit | Affirmed: Oct. 25, 2012 was not an abuse of discretion |
| Identification/valuation of accounts & cash flows (including 2012 fishing income) | Court misconstrued expert: cash flows captured pre‑10/25/12 income that court omitted, undervaluing marital estate | Adoption of expert bank valuations without separate cash‑flow line prevents double counting | Remanded: court must clarify whether pre‑10/25/12 income (cash flows, fishing accounts) was properly identified and valued |
| Tax consequences of pre‑trial sales and awarded assets (equipment, pit, B&B) | Court should allocate tax/transaction costs as marital debt or otherwise account for them when awarding sale proceeds | Court treated proceeds as Dea’s responsibility or moot | Remanded: court abused discretion by ignoring specific, non‑speculative tax liabilities; must allocate accordingly |
| James’s 2013 personal income tax credit | Credit applied by trial court reduced marital estate though 2013 earnings postdate separation | Credit justified by trial court | Reversed/remanded: credit for 2013 personal tax liability was erroneous and must be corrected |
| PERS retirement health benefit (nonvested) | Benefit earned during marriage should be treated as marital and court should reserve jurisdiction/value it | James: issue waived or insufficiently raised | Remanded: court failed to address nonvested benefit; must determine vesting likelihood/valuation or retain jurisdiction |
| Alimony (rehabilitative / reorientation) | Dea presented education/training plan and requested alimony to support move and schooling; court neglected to rule | James opposed alimony | Remanded: court erred by failing to make findings; must decide with factual findings and legal analysis |
| Visitation travel expenses after Dea’s proposed relocation | Dea argued her lower earning capacity and legitimate reason to move mean costs should be apportioned | Court ordered Dea to pay all travel costs because move was voluntary | Reversed: ordering Dea to bear all costs was an abuse of discretion; remand to allocate justly given finances and costs |
| Child‑support credit for marital expenses paid by James (pre‑order) | Court should not allow broad credit for marital payments without itemization; many payments were taxes or marital debts, not child support | Court credited James for marital expenses paid, reducing arrearage | Remanded: court must scrutinize payments, determine what amounted to child support vs. marital debt under Rule 90.3(c)(1), and justify any credit |
| Attorney’s fees | Dea sought fees based on relative economic need; decision may change after remand | Opposed; court denied on reconsideration | Remanded: trial court should revisit fee request after property/tax/alimony adjustments |
Key Cases Cited
- Tybus v. Holland, 989 P.2d 1281 (Alaska 1999) (separation date defined as termination of marital economic unit; fact‑specific inquiry)
- Oberhansly v. Oberhansly, 798 P.2d 883 (Alaska 1990) (trial court must consider specific tax liabilities created by property division)
- Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (framework for identifying and valuing marital property)
- Pfeil v. Lock, 311 P.3d 649 (Alaska 2013) (marital property includes assets acquired during marriage)
- Engstrom v. Engstrom, 350 P.3d 766 (Alaska 2015) (retirement health benefits earned during marriage constitute marital property)
- Ruppe v. Ruppe, 358 P.3d 1284 (Alaska 2015) (standards for crediting pre‑order support under Civil Rule 90.3)
- Schanck v. Schanck, 717 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1986) (only property created by the marriage enterprise is divisible; separation‑date principles)