McCarter v. McCarter, 303 P.3d 509

David J. McCarter Jr. and Deborah A. McCarter (Valdez) married in 1988 and petitioned for dissolution in 2007, with a property agreement incorporated into the decree.
The Agreement required David to pay Deborah $2,000 per month for 320 months for Deborah’s equity in Dave McCarter Enterprises, Ltd., noting a $300,000 principal at 5% interest with a March 1, 2007 due date.
In July 2007 the parties signed a Release purporting to release all claims and to outright purchase the $300,000 note, with Deborah to be paid $15,000 cash and other ancillary terms, plus a handwritten reverter clause.
The superior court interpreted the Release and incorporated terms, and found the 320‑month schedule ambiguous in light of the stated principal and interest.
In 2011 the superior court interpreted the contract under contract principles, found an ambiguity, concluded the intended arrangement was $300,000 paid as $2,000 monthly at 5%, totaling $471,869.47, and denied acceleration or other modification; Deborah’s motion to enforce was granted and judgment entered in Deborah’s favor.
David appeals, arguing the court should have made AS 25.24.230 findings, vacated the ambiguity, or modified the agreement, which the court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion enforcing the agreement.	McCarter contends the court failed to make required AS 25.24.230 findings.	Valdez argues enforcement under contract law, not failed findings, is proper.	No abuse; proper contract interpretation applied.
Whether AS 25.24.230 findings were required for enforcement.	McCarter argues findings were required for fairness of incorporated agreement.	Valdez contends findings relate to dissolution, not enforcement.	Not required for enforcement; waiver and finality controls.
Whether the court should have vacated ambiguous terms or amended the agreement.	McCarter seeks vacatur/amendment of ambiguous provisions.	Valdez asserts interpretation, not amendment, is correct.	Court did not amend; interpreted ambiguities under contract law.
Whether David waived relief under Rule 60(b).	McCarter relied on Rule 60(b) relief but did not file an actual motion.	Valdez asserts waiver of Rule 60(b) relief.	Waiver properly found; no Rule 60(b) relief granted.
Whether the court properly rejected David’s frustration/unclean hands defenses.	McCarter claimed frustration of purpose due to Deborah’s conduct.	Valdez argued lack of wrongdoing and no support for frustration defense.	Frustration/unclean hands defenses rejected; not proven.

Morris v. Horn, 219 P.3d 198 (Alaska 2009) (contract interpretation; where applicable to enforcement/modification)
Knutson v. Knutson, 973 P.2d 596 (Alaska 1999) (waiver and modification standards in Alaska family law)
Keffer v. Keffer, 852 P.2d 394 (Alaska 1993) (principles for interpreting property settlements)
Lowe v. Lowe, 817 P.2d 453 (Alaska 1991) (considerations of reasonable expectations in contract interpretation)
Hartley v. Hartley, 205 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2009) (extrinsic evidence and ambiguity resolution in contract interpretation)
Zito v. Zito, 969 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1998) (ambiguity resolution and contract interpretation principles)
Knaebel v. Heiner, 663 P.2d 551 (Alaska 1983) (unclean hands/frustration concepts in equity/contract contexts)