Sharon Thompson v. Everett Thompson, 454 P.3d 981

Background

Sharon and Everett Thompson married in 2011 and have two minor children; Everett is an Alaska commercial fisherman who owned one vessel pre-marriage and purchased the F/V NORTHERN FLYER during the marriage.
In January 2018 Sharon alleged their daughter had a genital injury possibly indicating sexual abuse; short-term protective orders were issued but long-term orders were denied after hearings.
Interim custody oscillated (two-day alternating schedule), the court later limited the daughter’s overnight time with Everett; at trial the superior court awarded joint legal and shared physical custody with a three- or four-day rotation.
For child support the court used Everett’s 2016 tax return as a benchmark, found adjusted annual incomes of $61,185 for Everett and $19,808 for Sharon, and ordered support (later amended). The court failed to explain certain deductions.
Property division: the marital home and some fishing assets were treated as Everett’s separate property; the F/V NORTHERN FLYER was treated as marital property but divided 70/30 (Everett/Sharon); the remainder of the marital estate was split 55/45 (Sharon favored), producing an equalization payment owed by Everett of ~$84,538 payable over four years with interest.
The superior court denied a separate attorney’s fees award, reasoning the unequal property split put the parties on equal footing; Sharon appealed custody, child support, property division, and fee rulings.

Issues

Issue	Sharon's Argument	Everett's Argument	Held
Custody (joint legal/shared physical)	Court applied an improper "conclusive" standard re: daughter’s injury and erred in finding Everett capable of protecting/responding; Sharon sought primary custody	Evidence did not prove timing of injury or responsibility; Everett had credibly changed his position and could parent safely	Affirmed — trial court did not clearly err; credibility and weighing of conflicting evidence supported joint legal/shared physical custody.
Child support income calculations	Court erred using 2016 return for Everett, omitted certain income items, and overstated Sharon’s income without explaining deductions or imputation	2016 return was a reasonable benchmark; infrequent income sources could be excluded; court has discretion on which years to use	Vacated/remanded — insufficient findings: court must identify and explain which deductions and income/exclusions it used for both parents.
Property division of F/V NORTHERN FLYER	Vessel was marital property and should not have been treated differently than other marital assets; 70/30 split unjustified	Everett’s pre-marital fishing experience and disproportionate contributions to the vessel justify unequal split	Vacated/remanded — court abused discretion by treating the vessel differently without adequate statutory-factor findings; remand for equitable redetermination and recalculation of equalization payment.
Attorney’s fees and payment schedule	Denial of separate fees + four-year, open-ended equalization payment left Sharon unable to litigate on equal footing; court should have ordered fees or a concrete payment schedule	Property division sufficed to level the playing field; multi-year payment period justified by fluctuating income	Vacated/remanded — fees must be reconsidered after new division; court abused discretion by relying solely on a delayed equalization payment without a schedule.

Key Cases Cited

Geldermann v. Geldermann, 428 P.3d 477 (Alaska 2018) (standard of review for custody appeals).
Riggs v. Coonradt, 335 P.3d 1103 (Alaska 2014) (appellate review standards for custody findings).
Ruppe v. Ruppe, 358 P.3d 1284 (Alaska 2015) (child support reviewed for abuse of discretion; income findings reviewed for clear error).
Horne v. Touhakis, 356 P.3d 280 (Alaska 2015) (requirement for sufficient findings to permit appellate review).
Engstrom v. Engstrom, 350 P.3d 766 (Alaska 2015) (three-step framework for division of marital property).
Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (marital vs. separate property principles).
Morris v. Horn, 219 P.3d 198 (Alaska 2009) (benchmarks and discretion for selecting years to determine variable self-employment income).
Berry v. Berry, 277 P.3d 771 (Alaska 2012) (deference to trial court credibility findings and standards for attorney’s fees).