Fernandez v. Fernandez, 312 P.3d 1098

Cynthia and David Fernandez married in 1979 and had two children; they dissolved the marriage in 1986 but cohabited for years thereafter.
CSSD informed David in 2010 that he owed child support of $450/month based on the 1986 dissolution order.
In May 2011, at a settlement conference, the parties purportedly reached an agreement: Cynthia would attempt to obtain a $33,000 second mortgage to fund a settlement payable to David; if not possible, they would negotiate in good faith on a payment plan.
Cynthia could not obtain the second mortgage; negotiations continued, with the court outlining further negotiation steps and ultimately conditioning a binding result on a payment plan.
In March 2012 the superior court entered a judgment requiring Cynthia to pay $250/month and turn over her PFD to satisfy a $33,000 debt, which Cynthia challenged on Rule 60(b) grounds.
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding there was no binding agreement to bind Cynthia to a specific settlement path and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a binding settlement after the settlement conference?	Cynthia: agreement was an 'agreement to negotiate' and did not bind to specific terms if mortgage funding failed.	David: the agreement bound Cynthia to settle and to negotiate in good faith within specified terms.	No binding settlement; square-one rights preserved for Cynthia.
Did the court err in refusing to let Cynthia return to square one after failed funding?	Cynthia: upon failure of funding, she was entitled to return to square one under the original agreement.	David: the court could enforce a narrowed good-faith framework and impose terms if negotiations failed.	The court erred by not allowing a return to square one and by improperly narrowing the original agreement.
Was Cynthia entitled to Rule 60(b) relief from judgment based on settlement conference conduct?	Cynthia: various biases and misapplication of guidelines; relief warranted.	David: the court did not abuse discretion; conference conduct and guidelines were properly applied.	Rule 60(b) relief denied; issues on the settlement were remanded for further proceedings.
Should the case be reassigned on remand?	Cynthia: request for reassignment to a different judge when remanded.	David: reassignment should be considered on remand; premature now.	Reassignment on remand premature; proper avenue is AS 22.20.020 remand procedure.

Brady v. State, 965 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1998) (duty to negotiate good faith limited by scope of agreement; enforceability of 'agreement to negotiate' depends on specifics)
Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 282 P.3d 359 (Alaska 2012) (agreement to negotiate unenforceable when no specific process or dispute-resolution method is provided)
Davis v. Dykman, 938 P.2d 1002 (Alaska 1997) (enforceability of agreements to negotiate; need for a defined process)
Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass’n Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 45 P.3d 657 (Alaska 2002) (enforceability of settlement-related terms; limits on agree-to-negotiate concepts)
Colton v. Colton, 244 P.3d 1121 (Alaska 2010) (clarifies enforceability and breach concepts in settlement agreements)
Mullins v. Oates, 179 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2008) (interpretation of settlement or negotiation-related questions in Alaska)