Richter v. Richter
330 P.3d 934
Alaska2014Background
- Matthew and Shelley Richter married in California in January 2010, separated October 2011, and Shelley filed for divorce; superior court entered divorce and property division after a three-day trial.
- Matthew worked as a helicopter pilot and traveled frequently; he maintained ties to Idaho (owned house there) but bought a condo in Anchorage with Shelley and had an Alaska driver’s license and used an Alaska address on tax returns.
- Patricia Richter (Matthew’s mother) obtained a ~$100,000 loan from a family trust at low interest and wired the funds to Matthew and Shelley’s joint account in June 2011; those funds were used to pay off Shelley’s high-interest student loans and repayments came from the joint account.
- Matthew and Patricia testified the loan was solely between Patricia and Shelley; Shelley testified the loan was offered to the couple as an investment and they jointly decided to use it to pay student loans.
- The superior court found (1) it had personal jurisdiction over Matthew because he resided in Alaska for at least six consecutive months during the marital relationship, and (2) the $100,000 loan was marital debt and split 50/50. Matthew appealed, raising jurisdiction, classification of the debt, and due process/notice arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Matthew’s Argument | Shelley’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under AS 09.05.015(a)(12) | Matthew contends he was an Idaho resident and did not reside in Alaska for six consecutive months during the marriage | Shelley points to joint condo, Matthew’s Alaska license, taxes, and testimony he lived in Alaska continuously for a period of the marriage | Court: Personal jurisdiction proper — Matthew resided in Alaska for the required six consecutive months while in a marital relationship |
| Subject matter jurisdiction to grant divorce and divide property | Matthew argued superior court lacked authority over personal claims (asserted lack of jurisdiction) | Shelley’s complaint sought divorce and adjudication of property and debts under Alaska divorce statutes | Court: Superior court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant divorce and divide property |
| Classification of $100,000 loan (marital vs separate) | Matthew and Patricia: loan was to Shelley alone and nonmarital; Matthew had no role | Shelley: loan offered to the couple for investment; they jointly decided to use it to pay student loans; funds and repayments flowed through joint account | Court: Loan incurred during marriage and treated as presumptively marital; superior court’s factual finding that debt was marital was not clearly erroneous; split 50/50 |
| Due process / notice of property division | Matthew: he reasonably expected only rescission and lacked notice that equitable division would be sought, so he lacked opportunity to present evidence | Shelley: complaint, answer, and trial briefs put property and the loan at issue; Matthew litigated the loan at trial | Court: No due process violation — Matthew had adequate notice and opportunity to litigate the loan issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (principles governing characterization and equitable division of marital property)
- Stanhope v. Stanhope, 306 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2013) (presumption that assets acquired during marriage are marital and review of factual findings)
- Ginn-Williams v. Williams, 143 P.3d 949 (Alaska 2006) (transmutation of nonmarital property and associated debts depends on intent and acceptance)
- Rose v. Rose, 755 P.2d 1121 (Alaska 1988) (trial court may choose rescission remedy but equitable distribution is within discretion)