Horning v. Horning
2017 Alas. LEXIS 18
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Shanda and Donovan Horning married in 2000; separated in 2013; divorce filed 2015.
- Donovan is an active-duty Air Force member with a military pension and an unvested post-retirement TRICARE health benefit if he retires with >20 years’ service.
- Shanda is an Alaska Native and therefore eligible for Indian Health Service (IHS) healthcare; her eligibility predates the marriage.
- The superior court divided the marital estate 50/50, splitting the marital portion of Donovan’s pension but declining to value or divide the TRICARE benefit.
- The superior court treated Shanda’s IHS eligibility as offsetting Donovan’s TRICARE benefit (a “wash”) and denied Shanda’s request for expert-costs to value retirement/health benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Donovan’s post-retirement TRICARE benefit | TRICARE (to extent earned during marriage) is marital property and should be valued/divided | Court below treated it as offset by Shanda’s IHS eligibility and did not value/divide it | TRICARE earned during marriage is marital property; court must classify and divide accordingly |
| Classification of Shanda’s IHS eligibility | IHS eligibility is separate property (acquired before marriage) and cannot be used to offset marital assets | Court below treated eligibility as an offset to TRICARE, effectively treating it as marital | IHS eligibility is separate property because it was acquired before marriage; cannot be used to offset marital property absent balancing equities |
| Use of separate property to offset marital property | Shanda: improper invasion of separate property; superior court erred | Donovan: equal benefit/wash justified no valuation | Court: Superior court erred — invasion of separate property not permitted here; remand required |
| Denial of expert-costs to value retirement/health benefits | Needed valuation of unvested benefits; denial abused discretion because court applied wrong legal view | Court below denied costs as unnecessary because of perceived offset/wash | Court vacated denial and instructed superior court to reconsider costs on remand (legal error in reasoning) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burts v. Burts, 266 P.3d 337 (Alaska 2011) (post-retirement TRICARE can be marital to the extent earned during marriage)
- Hansen v. Hansen, 119 P.3d 1005 (Alaska 2005) (health insurance benefits earned during marriage are marital assets)
- Schmitz v. Schmitz, 88 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2004) (property acquired before marriage is separate property)
- Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2014) (three-step framework for equitable division: identify property, value it, then divide)
- Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error; legal questions de novo)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 815 P.2d 366 (Alaska 1991) (trial court must make explicit findings supporting property division)
- Ethelbah v. Walker, 225 P.3d 1082 (Alaska 2010) (approaches for dividing vested and unvested retirement benefits)
- Laing v. Laing, 741 P.2d 649 (Alaska 1987) (rejecting lump-sum present payment for unvested retirement benefits)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 265 P.3d 279 (Alaska 2011) (courts may award costs/fees in divorce based on relative economic positions)