Pasley v. Pasley
442 P.3d 738
Alaska2019Background
- Sean and Cindy Pasley married in 2005, separated in 2014, and litigated a divorce across an 11‑day trial; superior court issued property, custody, and visitation orders in 2016–2017.
- Cindy maintained separate title to a premarital house, checking (~$15,559) and savings (~$22,653) accounts at separation; she testified parts of the accounts held funds for her adult children.
- Cindy began the marriage with accrued personal (vacation) leave and cashed out additional leave after separation; parties disputed tracing method (FIFO vs LIFO) to identify marital portion.
- Sean was barred from the home by a protective order, retrieved some belongings via writ of assistance; he alleged Cindy damaged items left outside or in his van and requested reimbursement or valuation at zero.
- Custody: court found Sean had a history of domestic violence, heard evaluations recommending Cindy have final authority, awarded Cindy sole legal and primary physical custody, and allowed unsupervised visitation only after conditions (drug testing and updated substance‑abuse evaluation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sean) | Defendant's Argument (Cindy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of Cindy's bank accounts | Both checking and savings are entirely marital | Portions are separate (funds held for adult children/son) | Vacated and remanded — trial court failed to articulate tracing analysis and needed findings for appellate review |
| Accrued personal leave tracing | FIFO: premarital leave used first so most leave at separation is marital | LIFO/last‑in first‑out: marital leave spent first so premarital leave preserved | Affirmed LIFO approach; 96 hours held marital (court’s classification affirmed) |
| Premarital house transmutation | House transmuted to marital property by use, contributions, refinancing | House remained Cindy's separate property; no donative intent shown | Affirmed — no clear error; no implied interspousal gift by Cindy |
| Damaged personal property valuation/reimbursement | Cindy damaged items; award replacement value against Cindy or value items at zero if ruined | Items have value and Cindy not responsible for damage | Court correctly found Cindy not liable for damage (affirmed) but vacated valuations for some items shown to be ruined and remanded for correct valuation |
| Custody and visitation conditions | Sean sought joint legal/shared physical custody and less onerous testing | Cindy sought sole legal/primary physical custody and drug‑related conditions | Affirmed award of sole legal and primary physical custody to Cindy; conditions (monthly hair tests for six months and updated evaluation) not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmitz v. Schmitz, 88 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2004) (tracing and characterization principles for secondary assets)
- Schober v. Schober, 692 P.2d 267 (Alaska 1984) (unused personal leave is marital property akin to deferred compensation)
- Kessler v. Kessler, 411 P.3d 616 (Alaska 2018) (clarified law on transmutation by implied interspousal gift)
- Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (standards for equitable distribution analysis)
- Ogard v. Ogard, 808 P.2d 815 (Alaska 1991) (valuation date guidance; value at time of division)