McLaren v. McLaren
2012 Alas. LEXIS 21
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Teresa and Darren McLaren cohabited beginning in 1988 and married on October 24, 1999; they separated in 2005 and Darren filed for divorce in 2006.
- Superior court valued the marital estate at $277,868.44 and awarded Teresa 52.5% and Darren the remainder.
- Teresa, pro se, was largely uncooperative in discovery; she refused deposition and failed to provide requested records, impeding valuation and substantiation of debts and retirement.
- Particular asset disputes included: Teresa’s civil service retirement portion during premarital cohabitation; several boats and a stereo; Darren’s tools; debts in Teresa’s name; antiques/household furnishings; an EMC motorhome; Lake Louise properties; Landingcraft and Grayling boats; and the house foreclosure history.
- Trial findings and the distribution spreadsheet reflected specific outcomes for these assets, with the court adopting Darren’s valuations and Teresa’s unrevised positions on some items; several items were not included in the final distribution.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the superior court’s characterization, valuation, and equitable distribution, with a dissent by Christen, who would require explicit findings justifying invasion of premarital property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether premarital cohabitation assets can be included as marital property | Teresa contends the court wrongfully treated premarital cohabitation assets as marital. | Darren argues the entire relationship, including premarital cohabitation, supports a marital characterization for equity. | Characterization affirmed; premarital cohabitation assets may be included under AS 25.24.160(a)(4). |
| Whether the Glassply boat, Jeteraft boat, and Pioneer stereo were marital | Teresa designated these items as premarital and not part of the marital estate. | Darren relied on those items as premarital; court adopted that view. | Not marital property; affirmed. |
| Whether Darren's tools were correctly valued and characterized as marital | Teresa argued tools were not properly valued or were premarital. | Court adopted Darren’s valuation including tools acquired during the relationship. | Valuation affirmed; tools included and valued as marital. |
| Whether debts in Teresa's name were properly characterized and discovered | Debts in Teresa's name should be analyzed as marital or supportable with discovery evidence. | Debts characterized as marital based on record; Teresa failed to substantiate with discovery. | Debts treated as marital; no reversible error in discovery handling. |
| Whether the overall distribution was fair under AS 25.24.160(a)(4) | Teresa asserts the distribution favored Darren given her health and finances; asks for reversal or reallocation. | Court considered needs and equities; equal division presumed valid and supported by record. | Affirmed 52.5% to Teresa and 47.5% to Darren as not clearly unjust. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Murray, 788 P.2d 41 (Alaska 1990) (explicit balancing of equities required to invade premarital property)
- Faulkner v. Goldfuss, 46 P.3d 993 (Alaska 2002) (premarital cohabitation can be treated as marital with proper findings)
- Chase v. Chase, 109 P.3d 942 (Alaska 2005) (explicit findings supporting invasion of separate property may justify marital treatment)
- Harrelson v. Harrelson, 932 P.2d 247 (Alaska 1997) (remand when duration of marriage was unclear; need adequate findings)
- Odom v. Odom, 141 P.3d 324 (Alaska 2006) (principles for invading premarital assets and balancing equities)
- Krize v. Krize, 145 P.3d 481 (Alaska 2006) (valuation and property characterization standards in divorce)
- Pam R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 185 P.3d 67 (Alaska 2008) (pro se litigants and discovery rules guidance)
- McDanold v. McDanold, 718 P.2d 467 (Alaska 1986) (property division considerations in Alaska)