Kristy McConville v. John J. Otness
498 P.3d 632
| Alaska | 2021Background
- Kristy McConville inherited substantial funds, moved to Alaska (2013), and purchased several properties—titled in her name—including the Rose Lane residence in Petersburg, which she bought with her own cash.
- Kristy and John Otness had an intermittent romantic relationship (2010–2016) with periods of cohabitation; John did some work on Kristy’s properties and occasionally paid a few bills but did not contribute to down payments or regular mortgage/rent.
- Kristy attempted to have John obtain VA financing for a joint purchase so both would be owners, but VA rules prevented Kristy from being on a VA loan title; Kristy then bought Rose Lane in her name alone.
- John sued (Oct. 2016) claiming a domestic partnership and entitlement to half of partnership property; superior court found a limited domestic partnership and ruled the Rose Lane property was domestic partnership property, awarding John 50% of its equity via an equalization payment.
- Kristy moved for reconsideration and appealed; the Alaska Supreme Court limited its review to the property classification issue and whether Kristy intended Rose Lane to be partnership property.
- The Supreme Court held the superior court erred: Kristy’s intent to share ownership was conditional on being co-owner (which the VA loan prevented), so there was no clear intent to make Rose Lane partnership property; the equalization award was reversed and vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Otness) | Defendant's Argument (McConville) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a domestic partnership existed between the parties | They lived together intermittently, shared life and some expenses, and intended a marriage-like relationship | Relationship was intermittent, long-distance at times, and lacked sufficient marriage-like indicia | Superior court found a limited domestic partnership (2013–Aug 2016); Supreme Court did not need to resolve this further for its ruling on property classification |
| Whether the Rose Lane property was intended to be domestic partnership property | Kristy’s conduct (attempt to use VA loan in John’s name, cohabitation, John’s work and some bills) showed intent to share ownership | Kristy paid cash, title was in her name, she only intended to share if both were on title and John contributed financing; no express agreement to share | Supreme Court: classification as partnership property was clear error—Kristy’s willingness to share was contingent on being named co-owner; absent that, no intent to make the property partnership property; equalization award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomal v. Anderson, 426 P.3d 915 (Alaska 2018) (framework for classifying domestic partnership property and standard of review)
- Bishop v. Clark, 54 P.3d 804 (Alaska 2002) (factors for determining existence of a domestic partnership and intent to share property)
- Boulds v. Nielsen, 323 P.3d 58 (Alaska 2014) (rule that mere cohabitation is insufficient to demonstrate intent to share property)
- Tolan v. Kimball, 33 P.3d 1152 (Alaska 2001) (example where substantial contributions supported treating a purchased home as partnership property)
- Wood v. Collins, 812 P.2d 951 (Alaska 1991) (absent express agreement, courts infer parties’ implicit intent from facts)