Snider v. Snider, 357 P.3d 1180

Background

Thad and Michele Snider divorced after Michele moved to Washington with their son; Thad filed for divorce after taking the child back to Alaska and was given interim primary physical custody.
A two-day trial was set for December 18–19, 2013; Thad moved for a continuance in mid-December citing counsel preparation and health issues. The court vacated Dec. 18 and reserved limited time on Dec. 19 to take testimony from out-of-state witnesses (Michele and her mother).
The court suggested and the parties agreed to continue limited proceedings on Dec. 24 (Christmas Eve) to accommodate witnesses; during Dec. 24 the court declared it was the last available trial day and closed evidence while Thad expected to call additional witnesses (his father Robert and brother Jeremiah deSilva).
After trial, Thad submitted affidavits from those two witnesses; the superior court struck them and denied reopening the evidence and his reconsideration motion. The court awarded Michele primary physical custody and treated a cabin deeded in the parties’ names as marital property.
The Alaska Supreme Court found the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reopen the evidence because the court’s prior scheduling and comments reasonably led Thad to expect further opportunity to present testimony. The custody and property rulings were vacated and remanded for limited additional testimony. The court affirmed denial of recusal and upheld most of the superior court’s best-interest analysis (subject to reconsideration in light of any new evidence).

Issues

Issue	Thad's Argument	Michele's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused discretion by refusing to reopen the evidence to allow testimony of two witnesses after trial closed	Court’s scheduling and statements led him reasonably to expect more time; post-trial affidavits show important, non-cumulative evidence (title intent; claims about household substance abuse)	Trial time was fixed; Thad didn’t show due diligence for continuance; reopening would prejudice finality	Abuse of discretion: vacated custody and property rulings; remand for limited testimony and rebuttal within 90 days
Whether the judge should have recused for bias	The judge’s rulings and factual findings show partiality; denial of extra time indicates bias	Adverse rulings aren’t bias; Thad made no extrajudicial-basis showing and gave only an oral objection without follow-up	No abuse of discretion in denying recusal; factual findings overall not so erroneous to show bias
Whether superior court erred in weighing best-interest factors awarding primary physical custody to Michele	Court misweighed factors, ignored evidence of Thad’s stronger stability and overstated Michele’s ties; failed symmetric analysis re: relocation	Court considered statutory factors; found factors largely equal except one favoring Michele (willingness to facilitate relationship) based on credibility	No abuse of discretion in the court’s weighing of the addressed factors; but custody decision vacated for reconsideration in light of newly admitted evidence on remand
Whether the cabin deeded in parties’ names is marital property or a security transfer from Robert	Deed was a security device; Robert intended to retain ownership — evidence (to be supplied) would show intent	Deed on its face transferred title; Thad failed at trial to prove a security agreement	Characterization to be reconsidered on remand by assessing parties’ intent from all circumstances (consider factors like consideration, possession, conduct, taxes, financial condition)

Key Cases Cited

Sanguinetti v. Sanguinetti, 628 P.2d 913 (Alaska 1981) (trial-court rulings on reopening evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Yang v. Yoo, 812 P.2d 210 (Alaska 1991) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Heber v. Heber, 330 P.3d 926 (Alaska 2014) (judge’s capacity to conduct fair trial reviewed for abuse of discretion; appearance-of-partiality reviewed de novo)
Ebertz v. Ebertz, 113 P.3d 643 (Alaska 2005) (custody determinations insulated from reversal absent abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous factual findings)
Meier v. Cloud, 34 P.3d 1274 (Alaska 2001) (relocating parent may be awarded custody when offering superior emotional stability; continuity not solely geographic)
Rizo v. MacBeth, 398 P.2d 209 (Alaska 1965) (deeds absolute on their face may be reformed into security agreements based on clear and convincing evidence; intent determined from all circumstances)
Griffin v. Weber, 299 P.3d 701 (Alaska 2013) (discussing reformation of deeds and related evidentiary standards)
Noffke v. Perez, 178 P.3d 1141 (Alaska 2008) (harmless error analysis for excluding evidence)