Helen S.K. v. Samuel M.K., 288 P.3d 463

Background

Helen S.K. and Samuel M.K. married in 1990; Helen filed for divorce in 2010 seeking sole legal and primary physical custody and equal asset division.
Samuel counterclaimed for joint legal custody and shared physical custody; trial court awarded joint legal custody, shared physical custody of Ellen and Jacob, and primary physical custody to Samuel for Jason.
The court imputed Helen's income and ordered child support to Samuel; assets were divided equally with several assets valued and distributed.
The court valued Samuel's capital stock and other assets, including a boat, furnishings, guns, and second washer/dryer; some valuations were disputed.
Helen appealed on in camera interviews, Jason’s custody, imputation of income, equal property division, and asset valuations; the Supreme Court reversed one asset valuation and affirmed the rest.
The Alaska Supreme Court remanded for adjustment of the property division based on correct stock valuation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
In camera interviews with children were proper?	K. argues due process was violated by using ex parte interviews without transcripts.	K. contends interviews were discretionary and summaries were provided; confidential, pretrial, sealed, and used to inform best interests.	Court's use of in camera interviews was proper; summaries given to parties preserved due process.
Did the court adequately consider AS 25.24.150(c) factors for Jason?	Helen claims the court neglected factors beyond Jason's stated preference.	Samuel argues record shows consideration of multiple relevant factors and interim findings informed final decision.	Court did not abuse discretion; it considered multiple factors and Jason's age-based preferences.
Was imputing Helen's income an abuse of discretion?	Helen contends underemployment was legitimate due to caring for children.	Court acted within discretion, noting potential full-time work and supervisor testimony.	Imputing income was within the court's discretion and not clearly erroneous.
Was the equal division of marital property properly conducted given Samuel stock value?	Helen argues equal division ignores changing stock value and duration of marriage.	Court relied on factors; valuation of stock was contested but equal division presumptively just.	Except for stock valuation, the property division was not clearly unjust; remand to adjust stock valuation.
Was the stock valuation error reversible?	Stock valued at $133,475.49 based on anticipated drop; contemporaneous sale evidence suggested higher value.	Trial court should use closest evidence to date; stock value contested but within discretion.	Valuation error; remand to adjust division to reflect proper stock value.

Key Cases Cited

Berry v. Berry, 978 P.2d 93 (Alaska 1999) (imputed income and earnings relevance in custody)
Iverson v. Griffith, 180 P.3d 943 (Alaska 2008) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
O'Connell v. Christenson, 75 P.3d 1037 (Alaska 2003) (due process considerations in custody hearings)
Cartee v. Cartee, 239 P.3d 707 (Alaska 2010) (abuse of discretion in custody and property rulings)
Sawicki v. Haxby, 186 P.3d 546 (Alaska 2008) (standard for reviewing property divisions)
Fardig v. Fardig, 56 P.3d 9 (Alaska 2002) (imputed income and related considerations)