Ruppe v. Ruppe
358 P.3d 1284
| Alaska | 2015Background
- Terry and Terri Ruppe divorced after separating in late 2012; they have one daughter (b. 2004) and permanent guardianship of two other children. Terry is a U.S. Army warrant officer; Terri had been a homemaker.
- The family lived in on-base housing paid via Terry’s Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH); they also owned a rental property in Virginia and had a thrift savings plan in Terry’s name.
- After separation Terry paid Terri approximately $2,200/month in cash and continued to have the BAH available for the on-base residence where Terri and the children stayed through the divorce trial.
- The superior court (1) awarded Terri primary physical custody and joint legal custody, (2) set interim and permanent child support (calculating interim support at $2,407/month and permanent support at $1,667/month), (3) divided marital property (Terri receiving ~58–60% of assets), and (4) denied spousal support and attorney’s fees.
- The superior court credited Terry for his BAH and monthly payments during the interim period and awarded him a $14,357 credit against future child support; Terri appealed several rulings including the BAH credit and the future-credit treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Terri) | Defendant's Argument (Terry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal custody (joint vs. final decision-making) | Court should give Terri final decision-making authority due to Terry’s military duties | Joint legal custody appropriate; military service does not presumptively defeat joint legal custody | Court did not abuse discretion in awarding joint legal custody (affirmed) |
| Interim child support — credit for housing allowance (BAH) | BAH should not count as credit against Terry’s interim child support because payments were voluntary and rule-guided formula should control | BAH properly counted as in-kind support that satisfied interim obligation | Court may vary interim support for good cause; affirm that BAH + cash satisfied interim obligation (affirmed) |
| Crediting interim overpayments against future support | Overpayments during pendency should be credited against post-divorce child support | Payments were voluntary/part of compromise and should not offset future obligations | Reversed: court erred to apply a forward credit for interim overpayments; voluntary/in-kind payments generally not offset future support absent exceptional circumstances or prepayment agreement (reversed) |
| Property division, spousal support, attorney’s fees | Terri contends withdrawals and asset treatment were mishandled; seeks spousal support and attorney’s fees | Trial court treated withdrawals and property division as adequate; denied spousal support and fees based on property division and findings | Division, denial of spousal support and attorney’s fees affirmed as within court’s discretion (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Wolpert, 332 P.3d 1279 (Alaska 2014) (standard for reviewing custody determinations)
- Heustess v. Kelley-Heustess, 158 P.3d 827 (Alaska 2007) (independent-judgment review for property and child support issues)
- Heustess v. Kelley-Heustess, 259 P.3d 462 (Alaska 2011) (child support awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Epperson v. Epperson, 835 P.2d 451 (Alaska 1992) (voluntary payments generally not credited against future child support absent agreement/exceptional circumstances)
- Vachon v. Pugliese, 931 P.2d 371 (Alaska 1996) (retroactive application of Rule 90.3 and exceptions for fairness)
- Jaymot v. Skillings-Donat, 216 P.3d 534 (Alaska 2009) (legislative preference for joint legal custody)