Kollander v. Kollander, 400 P.3d 91

Background

Jean and Daryl Kollander divorced in 1991; a QDRO allocated each party a share of the other’s federal retirement benefits. Daryl received monthly payments; Jean received a lump-sum settlement and final payment in 2008.
In 2012 Jean moved to reopen the QDRO and sought contempt relief, claiming she had been deprived of lifetime pension payments and asserting forgery/perjury allegations regarding home-closing documents.
The superior court dismissed Jean’s 2012 suit as barred by laches and originally awarded full attorney’s fees to Daryl; this court affirmed the laches ruling in Kollander v. Kollander (Kollander I) but remanded for a Rule 82 fee recalculation.
On remand the superior court found Daryl the prevailing party, concluded Jean’s claims and her attempt to relitigate the merits were unreasonable, and awarded Daryl 60% of his reasonable attorney’s fees (including pre-remand fees but excluding fees for the first appeal).
After remand Jean’s counsel Stephen Merrill filed motions accusing opposing counsel and Daryl of misconduct based on a document that Merrill himself had produced earlier; the court found Merrill failed to investigate the source and factual basis of his allegations.
The superior court imposed a personal Rule 11 sanction on Merrill, ordering him to pay the attorney’s fees incurred in responding to those meritless motions. Jean appeals the 60% Rule 82 award and the Rule 11 sanction against Merrill.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court abused its discretion in awarding 60% of Daryl’s reasonable attorney’s fees under Alaska R. Civ. P. 82	Jean: court improperly increased Rule 82 default; her claims were reasonable and enhancement not warranted	Daryl: Jean’s claims were unreasonable, laches defense was reasonable, justifying departure from Rule 82 defaults	Court affirmed: 60% fee award upheld based on unreasonableness of Jean’s claims and reasonableness of Daryl’s defense; no abuse of discretion
Whether post-remand fees could be included in the award	Jean: because award was reduced on remand she was prevailing party on remand and post-remand fees should not be awarded	Daryl: he remained prevailing party on the main issues; post-remand work was part of prevailing party’s costs	Court: argument waived on appeal; alternatively Daryl was still prevailing party, so inclusion of post-remand fees was not improper
Whether Merrill violated Alaska R. Civ. P. 11 by filing motions based on factual claims without reasonable inquiry	Jean/Merrill: underlying perjury claim had merit and filings were not made in bad faith	Daryl/Baranow: Merrill failed to make objectively reasonable inquiry; he was the source of the contested document and filed without checking the file	Court affirmed Rule 11 sanction: Merrill failed to make reasonable inquiry and thus violated Rule 11(b)(3); sanction appropriate
Whether the court improperly sanctioned Merrill for "improper purpose" alone	Jean: improper purpose cannot alone support Rule 11 sanction absent frivolousness; sanction amounted to punishing motive	Daryl: court relied primarily on lack of evidentiary support (b)(3) and also found improper purpose (b)(1)	Court: primary basis was lack of evidentiary support under Rule 11(b)(3); improper purpose finding was additional and sanction was not based on motive alone

Key Cases Cited

Kollander v. Kollander, 322 P.3d 897 (Alaska 2014) (prior appeal affirming laches and remanding for Rule 82 fee recalculation)
Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 834 P.2d 1220 (Alaska 1992) (Rule 11 requires objective reasonableness; subjective bad faith not required)
Tyler v. State, 47 P.3d 1095 (Alaska App. 2001) (attorney obligation to make objectively reasonable factual inquiry under Rule 11)
Keen v. Ruddy, 784 P.2d 653 (Alaska 1989) (Alaska Rule 11’s objective standard explained)
Johnson v. Johnson, 239 P.3d 393 (Alaska 2010) (Rule 82 departure: trial court has broad discretion to exceed fee schedule with stated reasons)
Continental Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 552 P.2d 1122 (Alaska 1976) (prevailing party concept and fee principles)