Limeres v. Limeres
2014 Alas. LEXIS 37
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Rene and Amy Limeres separated in 2011 after a long marriage with three minor children; Amy filed for divorce and obtained a long‑term protective order after alleging threats and violations of a no‑contact order.
- The superior court awarded Amy sole legal and physical custody, ordered supervised visitation for Rene, awarded the marital home to Amy, and set child support based on a finding that Rene’s net annual income was about $40,000.
- The court continued restraints and visitation conditions tied to Rene’s failure to complete a 36‑week batterers’ intervention program imposed by the protective order.
- The court adopted a professional appraisal for the house value, accepted Amy’s valuations for certain marital assets, and divided the marital estate equally.
- The court denied additional attorney’s fees to Rene (he had received $4,000 interim fees) and denied his motion for a continuance; Rene appealed on child support, custody/visitation, property valuation/division, attorney’s fees, continuance, and alleged improper delegation of fact‑finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rene) | Defendant's Argument (Amy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child support: income finding and averaging | Court erred in finding Rene earned ~$40,000; court should have averaged prior years or used tax return showing much lower income | Court relied on Rene’s inconsistent testimony and other evidence of higher receipts; no basis to average without evidentiary support | Affirmed: income finding not clearly erroneous; no abuse in declining to average income when record lacked foundation |
| Custody & visitation (best interests; supervised visitation) | Court’s best‑interest findings unsupported; supervised visitation unnecessary and punitive | Court considered statutory best‑interest factors, credibility, evidence of threats/violations, and noncompliance with batterers’ program; supervision protects children | Affirmed: factual findings not clearly erroneous; supervised visitation upheld based on safety concerns and uncompleted batterers’ program (lack of detailed domestic‑violence history findings harmless) |
| Property valuation and division | Court overvalued assets (real property, vehicles, books, art) and failed to account for income disparity; division should be unequal | Court credited appraisals and Amy’s asset spreadsheet; equal 50/50 division is presumptively valid and court considered parties’ circumstances | Affirmed: valuations were within court’s discretion; equal division not an abuse of discretion |
| Attorney’s fees and continuance | Denial of additional fees and denial of continuance prejudiced Rene (income seasonality, chance to complete program and retain counsel) | Court had awarded interim fees, Rene was unrepresented later, and Amy incurred fees related to domestic violence; Rene was able to present evidence at trial | Affirmed: denial of additional fees not arbitrary; denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion (no substantial prejudice shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Swaney v. Granger, 297 P.3d 132 (review of child support for abuse of discretion)
- Koller v. Reft, 71 P.3d 800 (factual findings of income for child support reviewed for clear error)
- Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (three‑step framework for equitable division of marital assets)
- McLaren v. McLaren, 268 P.3d 323 (presumption in favor of equal division of marital property)
- J.F.E. v. J.A.S., 930 P.2d 409 (requirements for findings to support supervised visitation)