Pfeil v. Lock
2013 Alas. LEXIS 140
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Pfeil and Lock dated 2005–2006, married 2009, divorced after a short marriage with disputed property.
- Primary assets are two Anchorage homes (E.65th and Langnes), a Duramax truck, and a Grizzly four-wheeler.
- E.65th home bought 2007; Langnes home bought 2010; E.65th used as rental, Langnes as marital residence.
- Court used a mix of Rose rescission and Wanberg equitable division to distribute property.
- Aaron moved for reconsideration; the superior court denied; appellate reversal and remand for a new division due to lack of explicit findings and Rose application issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal standard for property division in short-duration marriages | Pfeil contends Rose applies; seeks equal division or rescission-based distribution | Lock argues for court-identified method consistent with Rose/Wanberg | Remand for new division; Rose application requires proper findings and consistent methodology |
| Whether premarital/cohabitation assets may be treated as marital | Pfeil asserts assets acquired during cohabitation should be divisible | Lock maintains separation unless commingling supports Rose | Remand; necessary findings on commingling not made |
| Sufficiency of trial court findings to support property division | Pfeil argues findings do not justify Rose-based allocation | Lock contends court reasonably applied mixed approach | Vacate and remand for explicit factual basis supporting the chosen method |
| Standard of review for Rose-based allocations | Pfeil seeks independent-judgment review of Rose application | Lock accepts independent review but argues preserved errors | Court applies independent-judgment review on Rose application on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wanberg v. Wanberg, 664 P.2d 568 (Alaska 1983) (three-step equitable division framework: identify property, value it, divide fairly)
- Rose v. Rose, 755 P.2d 1121 (Alaska 1988) (rescission approach for short-duration marriages with little commingling)
- Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (clarifies equitable distribution framework pre-Rose decision in some contexts)
- Dunn v. Dunn, 952 P.2d 268 (Alaska 1998) (discusses Rose rescission and limitations of applying Rose to single assets)
- Cartee v. Cartee, 239 P.3d 707 (Alaska 2010) (requires factual findings to support Wanberg/Merrill factors in division)
- McCoy v. McCoy, 926 P.2d 460 (Alaska 1996) (recognizes broad consideration of applicable factors and commingling)
- Bell v. Bell, 794 P.2d 97 (Alaska 1990) (commingling and asset depreciation considerations in distribution)
- McLaren v. McLaren, 268 P.3d 323 (Alaska 2012) (general guidance on considering entire relationship in division)
- Schmitz v. Schmitz, 88 P.3d 1116 (Alaska 2004) (quoting framework on property characterization)