Heber v. Heber, 330 P.3d 926

Todd and Tamara Heber petitioned for dissolution on Aug 29, 2011 with joint custody and no domestic violence noted in dissolution.
Decree incorporating the agreement entered Dec 5, 2011.
Tamara sought custody modification in Aug 2012, alleging Todd’s misconduct and education-related concerns.
Custody hearings Aug 15–21, 2012; Tamara testified to domestic violence and Todd did not deny the dissolution agreement.
Aug 23, 2012, the court awarded Tamara sole legal and physical custody with supervised visitation for Todd pending a DV course; AS 25.24.150(j) prevented joint custody.
Emails during supervision led to concerns of ex parte communications; Judge Suddock disqualified himself on Dec 10, 2012; case reassigned to Judge Guidi; Oct 14, 2013 amended order reflecting prior oral rulings; Todd released from supervision in Nov 2013; appeals followed regarding Rule 60 motions and disqualification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(4) relief was proper.	Todd argues the assigned judge’s disqualification tainted later orders.	Respondent contends there was no void judgment; no reversible injustice.	Denied; no injustice to void the orders.
Whether Rule 60(b)(3) relief was proper.	Todd asserts Tamara committed misrepresentation/fraud and ex parte communications occurred.	Tamara’s statements contradicted dissolution but did not prove fraud; adequate notice existed.	Denied; no clear and convincing fraud shown.
Whether October 14, 2013 amendment was due process compliant.	Todd contends amendment without notice/hearing violated due process.	Amendment simply reduced to writing prior oral changes; proper under law.	Not a due process violation; amendment permissible.
Whether Judge Guidi’s denial of disqualification was proper.	Todd claims bias from prior staff-dispute disclosures.	Record shows no actual or apparent bias; standard for disqualification not met.	Affirmed; Guidi did not err in denying disqualification.
Whether ex parte emails created an actual bias requiring recusal.	Ex parte emails created appearance of impropriety.	No evidence judge responded to emails; no prejudice shown.	No reversible error; proper to deny relief.

Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (balance test for relief from judgments under 60(b))
Vent v. State, 288 P.3d 752 (Alaska App. 2012) (factors for void judgment relief under 60(b)(4))
Dussault, 245 P.3d 436 (Alaska App. 2011) (appearance of bias; ex parte communications)
Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2013) (conduct of factual record in Rule 60 analyses)
Channel Flying, Inc. v. Bernhardt, 451 P.2d 570 (Alaska 1969) (disqualification and post-disqualification judgments)
McAlpine v. Pacarro, 262 P.3d 622 (Alaska 2011) (look-back rule in domestic-violence custody cases)
Williams v. Barbee, 243 P.3d 995 (Alaska 2010) (custody considerations in DV context)
Michele M. v. Richard R., 177 P.3d 830 (Alaska 2008) (credibility and DV custody factors)
State v. Dussault, 245 P.3d 436 (Alaska App. 2011) (ex parte communications; appearance of bias)