Jett M. Million v. Diane L. Hubert, No. 7802

Million and Hubert dissolved their 2009 marriage in 2022 and agreed in writing to divide marital property, including Million’s Coast Guard benefits and the marital home. 1
At the dissolution hearing, both parties confirmed the petition was their entire voluntary agreement, and Million did not dispute Hubert’s statement that he would pay her half of his retirement benefits. 2
The superior court incorporated the agreement into the dissolution decree, and Million later made payments labeled as both retirement and disability pay. 3
After Million learned from the Coast Guard that his benefits were offset by VA benefits and included CRSC, he moved to undo the benefit division, claiming federal law barred division. 4
The superior court denied relief, ruling the agreement was voluntary and, alternatively, that Million’s attack on the decree was untimely under Rule 60(b). 5
Million also sought to force sale of the former marital home to remove his name from the mortgage, but the superior court declined and later set a refinancing deadline instead. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Million undo the benefit division under Rule 60(b)(1)-(3)? 7	Million claimed mistake, fraud, and coercion in the agreement’s formation.	Hubert argued the claims were filed more than a year late.	Relief was time-barred. 8
Is the decree void because it divided military disability/CRSC pay? 9	Million argued federal law made the decree invalid.	Hubert argued federal error does not make the judgment void.	No; the decree was not void under Rule 60(b)(4). 10
Did Hubert’s remarriage justify relief under Rule 60(b)(5)? 11	Million said remarriage changed circumstances and ended entitlement.	Hubert argued the payment was part of vested property division, not alimony.	No; remarriage did not justify modification. 12
Did the court abuse its discretion by refusing to force sale of the home? 13	Million said the delay unfairly kept him on the mortgage.	Hubert argued the agreement had no deadline and both parties caused delay.	No; the court acted within its discretion. 14

Gross v. Wilson, 424 P.3d 390 (Alaska 2018) (Rule 60(b)(4) does not make a judgment void merely because it is legally erroneous 15)
Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1989) (federal law preempts state division of waived military retirement pay used for disability benefits 16)
Powell v. Powell, 194 P.3d 364 (Alaska 2008) (mistake, fraud, and duress claims are governed by Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), not subsection (6) 17)
Guerrero v. Guerrero, 362 P.3d 432 (Alaska 2015) (sets factors for extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(6) in divorce cases 18)
Voyles v. Voyles, 644 P.2d 847 (Alaska 1982) (property settlement rights can vest and survive later changed circumstances 19)
Dewey v. Dewey, 886 P.2d 623 (Alaska 1994) (Rule 60(b)(5) relief requires a substantial change in circumstances 20)
Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257 (Alaska 1992) (courts balance finality against equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(6) 21)
Thomson v. Thomson, 394 P.3d 604 (Alaska 2017) (a QDRO simply enforces a retirement-division order 22)
Jones v. Jones, 505 P.3d 224 (Alaska 2022) (federal law does not bar enforcement of a contractual promise to pay military disability-derived sums 23)