Hockema v. Hockema
403 P.3d 1080
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Scott and Janet Hockema divorced after a long marriage; the superior court divided the marital estate 50/50 and awarded Janet six years of graduated spousal support totaling $216,000.
- Interim spousal support of $5,000/month had been ordered earlier; while Janet lived in the marital home Scott received credit for mortgage payments against that obligation; once she moved out he was ordered to pay the full amount.
- Disputed asset valuations included: the Kodiak marital home (two appraisals; septic repair needed), excavation equipment (conflicting appraisals and repair estimates), an IRA (conflicting exhibits), and Oregon real property (sales and tax payments).
- The court adopted appraiser valuations for the equipment and the lower house appraisal, denied an additional septic-offset because Scott failed to comply with repair orders and had the skills to do some work himself, and allocated various assets and credits, including some repair credits to Scott.
- The court treated two IRA exhibits as two separate accounts (totaling $12,950) despite testimony indicating a single IRA; it credited Scott for some but not all Oregon property tax payments and denied credits for mortgage payments after Janet left the home.
- On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed most property valuations and credit rulings, reversed the IRA valuation and an omitted $510.18 tax credit, and remanded the spousal support award for further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Scott's Argument | Janet's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of excavation equipment | Court erred; appraiser lacked local auction knowledge and assumed operability | Appraiser testimony reliable; equipment condition considered | Affirmed: trial court reasonably credited appraiser valuations |
| Valuation of marital residence (septic repair offset) | Court should deduct $19,500 repair cost from value | Court relied on lower appraisal and Scott’s failure to obey repair order; Scott could perform work | Affirmed: no clear error and equitable to deny further offset |
| IRA valuation | Two exhibits reflect one IRA; court double-counted; value should be $6,350 | Court concluded conflict showed two IRAs and totaled them | Reversed: record shows only one admitted exhibit; remand to value IRA at $6,350 |
| Credits for property taxes on Oregon property | Court omitted $510.18 and $3,600 payments; should credit both | Court credited documented $3,403.95 only; lacked proof for $3,600 | Affirmed for $3,600 (no proof); reversed for $510.18 — credit required |
| Credit for mortgage & interim support offsets | Should receive credit for mortgage payments and offset future spousal award by prior interim payments | Court refused credits to avoid negating interim support and to avoid ‘‘free’’ occupancy; offset would be double-dipping | Affirmed: denial of mortgage-credit and refusal to offset interim support was not clearly unjust |
| Award of future spousal support (amount/duration) | Court improperly deferred to Janet’s preference; should have considered unequal property division and made detailed findings about needs and Scott’s ability to pay | Court relied on Janet’s preference and Merrill factors generally; awarded $216,000 over six years | Vacated and remanded: insufficient findings whether property division could meet needs and insufficient findings on need, duration, and payer’s ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546 (Alaska 1962) (listing factors for equitable property division)
- Hanlon v. Hanlon, 871 P.2d 229 (Alaska 1994) (spousal support standards and required findings)
- Davila v. Davila, 876 P.2d 1089 (Alaska 1994) (rehabilitative vs. reorientation alimony; need for specific findings)
- Dundas v. Dundas, 362 P.3d 468 (Alaska 2015) (preference for satisfying needs via property division; spousal support guidance)
- Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 908 P.2d 1007 (Alaska 1995) (denial of mortgage-payment credit where spouse occupied home rent-free)