Engstrom v. Engstrom
2015 Alas. LEXIS 51
| Alaska | 2015Background
- Becky Engstrom and Andrew Engstrom married in 1998, had a child in 2003, and separated in 2010.
- Becky’s TRS retirement health insurance benefits vest after eight years, creating a marital portion dispute over valuation and timing.
- The superior court treated Becky's post-retirement benefits as marital to the extent vested and used a Hansen-style coverture fraction with a total-years-working denominator.
- The court awarded Becky 58.4% of marital property, based in part on Becky’s custody expectations and the marital home, and on Andy’s receipt of income-producing businesses.
- Andy sought reconsideration with new evidence (Becky TRS valuation and his 2010 tax liability) which the court declined to entertain; the appeal challenges four issues surrounding TRS, property division, and tax.
- The court ultimately reversed the equitable division and remanded for reconsideration; other aspects of the decision were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marital portion of TRS benefits | Andy argues denominator should be vesting years (8); Becky argues total years worked. | Becky contends coverture fraction uses total years worked, per Hansen; Sparks is overruled to the extent inconsistent. | Court used total years worked; Sparks overruled; Hansen applied. |
| Valuation rate for TRS subsidy | Andy advocates composite rate; Becky supports individual rate. | Becky’s expert testimony supports individual rate as more accurate for her situation. | Court adopted individual rate; consistent with Ethelbah. |
| Unequal division based on income-producing property | Andy contends gift of income-producing assets to Becky should not justify unequal division. | Becky’s advantage from income-producing property justifies some inequality. | Remanded for reevaluation of the unequal division; income-producing property alone insufficient. |
| Use of child custody and costs to justify unequal division | Becky’s expected custody and home retention support an unequal division. | Child-care considerations should not drive property division without adequate child support findings. | Remanded for findings on child support adequacy before relying on custody/costs to justify uneven division. |
| Tax liability valuation | Andy argues actual 2010 tax return should govern valuation instead of trial estimates. | Court reasonably declined late-produced evidence and used trial estimates. | No clear error; valuation sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansen v. Hansen, 119 P.3d 1005 (Alaska 2005) (post-retirement health benefits are marital if earned during marriage; coverture fraction applies)
- Sparks v. Sparks, 233 P.3d 1091 (Alaska 2010) (retirement benefits generally not marital when fully vested pre-marriage; overruled in part)
- Ethelbah v. Walker, 225 P.3d 1082 (Alaska 2009) (affirmed individual-rate valuation when appropriate due to anticipated personal circumstances)
- Rodvik v. Rodvik, 151 P.3d 343 (Alaska 2006) (child-support considerations and property division interplay; remand for adequate findings)
- Brandal v. Shangin, 36 P.3d 1188 (Alaska 2001) (property division should not rely on children’s needs absent proper support findings)