Holmes v. Holmes
414 P.3d 662
Alaska2018Background
- Parents: Branlund (father, lives in Oregon) and Tamara (mother, lives in Valdez) share two minor children; 2013 custody order gave Tamara custody during school year and Branlund custody during summer and other vacations; at-will visitation in Valdez permitted with 30 days’ notice.
- March 2014 child support order treated custody as shared going forward (Branlund ~115 overnights/year) and did not prospectively include at-will visitation because it was not regular enough.
- Branlund moved in Nov. 2014 to modify child support citing >15% income decrease from employment change; Tamara opposed and sought primary custody designation.
- At evidentiary hearings, Branlund claimed: (1) net business losses from his consulting firm (HRM Consulting) should reduce income; (2) a historical deduction for travel between Oregon and Alaska should remain; and (3) at-will visitation days and the 2014 Valdez school-calendar anomaly should affect custody-day calculations.
- The superior court (Feb. 2016) denied the HRM loss deductions, declined to include at-will visitation prospectively or for the modification period, corrected the summer-vacation overnights to exclude the 2014 aberration, and disallowed the travel-expense deduction; it concluded Tamara had primary physical custody and increased child support.
- Supreme Court affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Branlund) | Defendant's Argument (Tamara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Deductibility of claimed business losses from HRM Consulting when computing income | HRM losses are legitimate self-employment losses and should reduce his income for support | HRM generated no revenue for years; no supporting documentation; losses cannot be used to lower child support and would not benefit children | Court did not abuse discretion in disallowing the losses; affirmed |
| 2. Whether at-will visitation days should count toward custody percentage | Prior practice and recent days exercised justify counting at-will visits to reach shared custody threshold | At-will visits were irregular historically; prospective prediction cannot assume regular at-will use | Court properly declined to include at-will visitation prospectively or for the modification period; affirmed |
| 3. Whether the superior court erred in revisiting school-calendar days (2014 aberration) and changing custody percentage | Prior order knew the calendar and was final; cannot relitigate the same issue | 2014 calendar was anomalous (extra two weeks); new facts changed foreseeable custody fraction below 30% | Court correctly found a material change of circumstances based on the aberrant calendar and adjusted overnights; affirmed |
| 4. Deductibility of travel expenses for work-related flights between Oregon and Alaska | A prior (alleged 2009) oral allowance and consistent historical practice allow continued deductions | No transcript proving prior order; employment materially changed (no self-employment revenue); deduction not justified now | Court permissibly revisited and denied travel-expense deduction given changed circumstances; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Neal v. Campbell, 300 P.3d 15 (Alaska 2013) (standard of review for child support modifications and factual findings)
- Coghill v. Coghill, 836 P.2d 921 (Alaska 1992) (trial court discretion in including/excluding income items under Civil Rule 90.3)
- Gallant v. Gallant, 945 P.2d 795 (Alaska 1997) (treatment of self-employment expenses and net losses under Rule 90.3)
- Potter v. Potter, 55 P.3d 726 (Alaska 2002) (child-support setting as a predictive function; visitation forecasting)
- Richardson v. Kohlin, 175 P.3d 43 (Alaska 2008) (modification of child support reviewed for abuse of discretion and legal standards)
- Bunn v. House, 934 P.2d 753 (Alaska 1997) (finality and material-change-of-circumstances standard for support modifications)