Sherrill v. Sherrill, 373 P.3d 486

Background

Danny Sherrill (nonresident, living in Okinawa) and Paulita Hallen (resident of Alaska) separated after living abroad; they have one daughter. Paulita filed for divorce in Alaska in Sept. 2014; both parties proceeded pro se and Danny participated by telephone.
At two December hearings the parties largely agreed: Danny would pay Paulita $35,000 as an equitable division of marital property, they would share legal custody with Paulita having primary physical custody, and Danny would have liberal visitation. Danny said he had been paying about $1,600/month in child support.
Danny declined to fully document income (claiming classification); the superior court estimated his annual income at $110,000 and set support at $1,833.33/month. Paulita argued Danny’s income (including retirement) exceeded $120,000 and that the Rule 90.3 cap is $120,000.
The superior court entered final divorce decree, property, custody, and support orders; Danny later challenged jurisdiction, claimed prior payments exceeded the $35,000 award, and alleged judicial bias.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the property division and custody orders, found no appearance of bias, but remanded the child support order because the trial court appears to have used an incorrect $110,000 income ceiling instead of the $120,000 Rule 90.3 cap.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sherrill)	Defendant's Argument (Hallen)	Held
Personal jurisdiction for marital property division	Alaska lacked jurisdiction because parties never lived in Alaska as a married couple and Danny is nonresident	Jurisdiction valid because Danny did not timely contest jurisdiction (waived)	Waiver: Danny failed to assert the long‑arm defense; jurisdiction stands
Jurisdiction for child custody/support	Alaska cannot compel a nonresident; lack of contacts with Alaska	Alaska is the child's home state (child lived in Alaska >6 months); Danny made general appearance for support	Jurisdiction proper for custody (home state) and for support (Danny submitted to jurisdiction)
Equitable property division ($35,000)	Danny already paid more than $35,000 and trial court mis‑stated amount at one point ($3,500)	Parties agreed to $35,000 multiple times; record shows no fraud or concealment	Affirmed: agreement controls; division not clearly unjust
Child custody allocation	Custody award unfair given allegations Paulita concealed child	Parties agreed custody arrangement was in child’s best interest	Affirmed: parties’ agreement adopted; no abuse of discretion
Child support calculation	Court erred; should account for retirement, temporary work, and Danny’s lower ability to pay	Court used available evidence; $110,000 estimate was agreed to	Reversed in part: trial court used $110,000 ceiling in error; remand to recalculate support consistent with $120,000 Rule 90.3 cap
Judicial bias / appearance of impropriety	Court was dismissive, discouraged evidence, and favored Hallen	Court invited evidence, afforded opportunities, and adopted parties’ agreements	No appearance of bias; proceedings fair

Key Cases Cited

Vanvelzor v. Vanvelzor, 219 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2009) (Alaska long‑arm jurisdiction in divorce actions limited to statutory grounds)
Sandberg v. Sandberg, 322 P.3d 879 (Alaska 2014) (standard of review for equitable division of marital property)
Nancy M. v. John M., 308 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2013) (broad discretion and standards for custody determinations)
Wells v. Barile, 358 P.3d 583 (Alaska 2015) (Rule 90.3 interpretation and standards for reviewing support calculations)
Crane v. Crane, 986 P.2d 881 (Alaska 1999) (courts may adopt parents’ custody agreement absent evidence showing it is contrary to the child’s best interests)
McDonald v. Trihub, 173 P.3d 416 (Alaska 2007) (trial court discretion in determining earning capacity and support calculations)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks do not alone establish bias unless they reveal deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism)