Kollander v. Kollander
2014 Alas. LEXIS 67
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Jean and Daryl Kollander divorced in 1991; their settlement awarded each one-half interest in the other’s pension earned to date and directed that appropriately worded QDROs be submitted.
- Jean’s attorney prepared QDROs entered in 1992; neither spouse was yet receiving benefits. Daryl’s amended QDRO was entered in 2001 to satisfy the Teamster plan’s requirements; Daryl received lifetime monthly payments from Jean’s Teamster plan.
- When Daryl retired from federal service in 2007, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) applied the 1992 QDRO and paid Jean a lump-sum entitlement of $22,459.81 via monthly installments until paid (2007–2008); Jean accepted and spent part of the funds.
- Jean filed motions in 2012 seeking to reopen the pension division and to compel lifetime monthly payments from Daryl’s federal pension; at an evidentiary hearing the superior court found laches barred Jean’s claim and awarded Daryl $8,190.01 in attorney’s fees and costs.
- The superior court found Jean unreasonably delayed (received notice in 2007, took no litigation action through 2012), that Daryl was prejudiced by loss of evidence and unavailable former counsel, and that OPM applied its regulations; the court did not make findings of vexatious or bad-faith conduct when awarding full fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kollander) | Defendant's Argument (Daryl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of laches to pension-modification claim | Delay was reasonable; triggering event is alleged accrual of an arrearage (2009) — shorter delay | Jean unreasonably delayed after OPM’s 2007 letter and acceptance of funds; laches applicable | Court affirmed: laches applies; superior court’s findings of unreasonable delay and prejudice not clearly erroneous and its exercise of discretion was not an abuse |
| Whether superior court improperly deferred interpretation of QDRO to OPM | Court impermissibly credited OPM’s interpretation over judicial role | Even if OPM misinterpreted the QDRO, Jean knew OPM’s interpretation by 2007 and waited until 2012 to act | Court held no impermissible delegation; laches analysis focuses on delay and prejudice, not whether OPM’s interpretation was correct |
| Award of full attorney’s fees under Rule 82 | Rule 82 should govern post-judgment fee awards; full fees require findings of vexatious or bad faith | Superior court awarded full fees based on lack of admissible evidence after protracted hearing | Court reversed fee award and remanded: Rule 82 applies to post-judgment domestic-relations property disputes; full fees require express findings or reasonable inference of vexatious/bad-faith conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Burke v. Maka, 296 P.3d 976 (Alaska 2013) (standards for laches and review of factual findings and discretionary rulings)
- Gudenau v. Bang, 781 P.2d 1357 (Alaska 1989) (laches as an affirmative defense)
- Benson v. Benson, 977 P.2d 88 (Alaska 1999) (standards for de novo review of legal questions)
- Hopper v. Hopper, 171 P.3d 124 (Alaska 2007) (Rule 82 may apply to post-judgment modification/enforcement motions)
- Worland v. Worland, 240 P.3d 825 (Alaska 2010) (post-divorce pension modification and discussion of fee-award frameworks)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 239 P.3d 393 (Alaska 2010) (Rule 82 fee schedules and when courts may depart; full fees require bad faith/vexatious conduct)