Kessler v. Kessler, 411 P.3d 616

Kenneth purchased a condominium in summer 1999 before he and Dianna began dating; they lived there from 2000 and married in 2010; Dianna filed for divorce in 2015.
Kenneth paid the mortgage and condo dues from his personal account; Dianna performed some maintenance/upgrades (painting, windows, countertops, blinds, washer/dryer) and paid many household expenses.
The couple maintained largely separate finances, though they had some joint accounts and consolidated some credit-card debt.
No testimony or documentary evidence showed Kenneth made any express statement gifting the condominium to the marital estate.
The superior court found the condominium had transmuted to marital property based mainly on use as the marital home and Dianna’s contributions; it also characterized loans from Kenneth’s father as marital.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding the superior court clearly erred in finding donative intent absent persuasive evidence; remanded for further proceedings on related equitable issues (active appreciation, mortgage-paydown characterization, characterization of loans).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kenneth’s separately purchased condo transmuted into marital property via implied interspousal gift	Dianna argued her maintenance, financial contributions to the household, and use of the condo as the marital home show Kenneth intended to donate the property to the marital estate	Kenneth argued there was no donative intent: finances largely separate, he paid mortgage, no express statement, Dianna’s belief is unilateral and insufficient	Reversed. Court held there was no clear evidence of the owning spouse’s donative intent; condo remains Kenneth’s separate property absent further findings on other equitable claims

Burts v. Burts, 266 P.3d 337 (Alaska 2011) (Alaska uses equitable distribution statutory scheme)
Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (classification of separate vs marital property)
Sparks v. Sparks, 233 P.3d 1091 (Alaska 2010) (placement of separate property into joint title raises presumption of donation)
Cox v. Cox, 882 P.2d 909 (Alaska 1994) (identified four relevant factors used as evidentiary items in transmutation analysis)
Abood v. Abood, 119 P.3d 980 (Alaska 2005) (non-owning spouse participation must be significant to show donative intent)
Schmitz v. Schmitz, 88 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2004) (donative intent must be that of the owner; active appreciation doctrine described)
Sampson v. Sampson, 14 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2000) (expressed beliefs about availability of inheritance insufficient to show transmutation)