Jody D. Schindler v. Kelly A. Schindler, n/k/a Kelly A. Price, 474 P.3d 648

Jody D. Schindler and Kelly A. Price filed for divorce in 2016; the superior court issued a property-division judgment in June 2018.
The court valued the marital home at $269,000, awarded the home (and a $205,000 mortgage) to Schindler, and ordered him to pay Price an equalization payment of roughly $41,000.
Schindler did not appeal the 2018 judgment. After judgment he marketed the house and accepted offers in 2019 (initially $229,900, later $237,400).
Schindler moved to modify the property division; the superior court (after referral to a family court master) denied relief in May 2019.
Schindler then sought relief from judgment under Alaska R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6), arguing the post-judgment sale offers showed the court had mis-valued the home; the superior court denied the Rule 60(b) motion.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the post-judgment offers were not "newly discovered evidence" and did not present the extraordinary circumstances required under Rule 60(b)(6).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schindler)	Defendant's Argument (Price)	Held
Whether post-judgment sale offers are "newly discovered evidence" under Rule 60(b)(2)	The sale offers demonstrate the court mis-valued the house and thus constitute newly discovered evidence warranting relief	The offers arose after judgment and are new facts, not existing facts that were merely undiscovered at trial	Denied — offers arose after trial and are new facts, not "newly discovered" evidence for Rule 60(b)(2)
Whether relief is warranted under the catch‑all Rule 60(b)(6)	The mis-valuation makes the equalization payment unjust and constitutes another reason justifying relief	No extraordinary circumstances: the fundamental assumption (Schindler receiving the house) remains intact; division was not "poorly thought out"; sale realization was Schindler’s choice	Denied — did not meet Schofield factors or show extraordinary circumstances; affirming division does not produce injustice

Olson v. Olson, 856 P.2d 482 (Alaska 1993) (post-trial events that did not exist at time of trial are not "newly discovered" evidence under Rule 60(b)(2))
Cook v. Cook, 249 P.3d 1070 (Alaska 2011) (standard of review and limited scope of Rule 60(b); Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances)
Schofield v. Schofield, 777 P.2d 197 (Alaska 1989) (identifies factors that may show extraordinary circumstances for reopening property divisions)
Nordin Constr. Co. v. City of Nome, 489 P.2d 455 (Alaska 1971) (policy against reopening judgments based on facts arising after trial)
Morris v. Morris, 908 P.2d 425 (Alaska 1995) (Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for a timely appeal)
Richard v. Boggs, 162 P.3d 629 (Alaska 2007) (example of what constitutes a "poorly thought out" property division)