Reed v. Parrish
2012 Alas. LEXIS 143
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Unmarried couple Anthony Reed and Stephanie Parrish lived together 1998–2009 with two children; home titled in Reed's name.
- After separation, Stephanie obtained domestic violence protective order giving her possession and directing Reed to keep paying the mortgage.
- Superior Court ruled they formed a domestic partnership and intended to share property; divided assets 50/50 but did not credit post-separation mortgage payments.
- Reed sought credit for mortgage payments after separation; court declined, citing DVPO as the payments’ basis and as interim support.
- Court deemed post-separation payments necessary to maintain children’s stability and not creditable against property distribution.
- Reed appeals arguing no domestic partnership existed and that mortgage payments should be credited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err in finding a domestic partnership? | Reed: no intent to partnership; factors fail. | Parrish: Bishop factors show interdependence and intent to share. | No error; domestic partnership found; equal division justified. |
| Should post-separation mortgage payments be credited to Reed? | Reed: payments after separation should reduce his share. | Parrish: payments made under DVPO; not creditable; support equivalent. | No credit awarded; payments under DVPO; discretionary ruling affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bishop v. Clark, 54 P.3d 804 (Alaska 2002) (sets Bishop factors for determining cohabitants' intent to share property)
- Jaymot v. Skillings-Donat, 216 P.3d 534 (Alaska 2009) (cites Bishop; discusses intent and property division in cohabitation)
- Hanson v. Hanson, 125 P.3d 299 (Alaska 2005) (cites Beal; relevance to property division and domestic relations)
- Rockstad v. Erikson, 113 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2005) (cohabitation property disputes guidance)
- Julsen v. Julsen, 741 P.2d 642 (Alaska 1987) (equal division presumptions in property matters)
- Tolan v. Kimball, 33 P.3d 1152 (Alaska 2001) (discusses equal division and related considerations)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 265 P.3d 279 (Alaska 2011) (courts may characterize DVPO payments as property credit)