Stanhope v. Stanhope
306 P.3d 1282
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Kenneth and Maryna Stanhope remarried in 2007; Kenneth filed for divorce in October 2010. The court tried property issues in 2011 and entered final decree December 2011.
- The couple bought a West Sunrise Road house during the second marriage using settlement proceeds Kenneth received; title and mortgage were in both names.
- After separation Kenneth was ejected, returned briefly, and the house suffered vandalism/missing/damaged items when Maryna regained possession; both parties gave conflicting testimony about condition and removals.
- Superior court found Kenneth disabled with very limited earning capacity, found Maryna had some earning capacity, found Kenneth wasted marital assets, and found some of Maryna’s personal property missing and valued certain items (including “Russian instruments”) at $1,000.
- The court characterized the West Sunrise house as marital property, divided the marital estate 50/50, awarded the house to Maryna, ordered her to refinance/remove Kenneth from the mortgage and make an equalization payment (given one year), gave Maryna a half-credit for a post-separation mortgage payment, and declined to treat certain credit-card debts as proven marital debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kenneth) | Defendant's Argument (Maryna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the West Sunrise house is marital or Kenneth's separate property | House bought with Kenneth’s personal injury settlement and never transmuted to marital | Title and mortgage were joint; both used and contributed to upkeep; evidence of mutual improvements and payments | Court did not err: joint title and contributions support marital characterization |
| Whether equal (50/50) division was appropriate under Merrill factors given Kenneth’s disability and need | Disability, low earning capacity, and need for the home justify an unequal award to Kenneth | Court found Kenneth wasted marital assets and Maryna had better present ability to pay; Merrill factors considered | No abuse: court’s Merrill analysis supported equal division despite Kenneth’s disability |
| Findings about mortgage payment responsibilities and who is better positioned to satisfy mortgage/equalization | Kenneth can pay mortgage (e.g., via inheritance) and thus should not be disadvantaged | Maryna works and seeks additional income; Kenneth’s spending/credit-card debts suggest inheritance likely spent; court credited Maryna’s position | Court did not clearly err: findings support conclusion that Maryna was better positioned to pay mortgage/equalization |
| Characterization of credit-card debts as marital | Credit-card debts incurred during marriage are presumed marital and should be divided | Kenneth failed to introduce account statements or other proof; Maryna disclaimed knowledge of charges | Court properly found insufficient evidence to prove the debts were marital and declined to allocate them |
Key Cases Cited
- Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168 (Alaska 2009) (deference to trial court credibility findings when testimony conflicts)
- Johns v. Johns, 945 P.2d 1222 (Alaska 1997) (joint title creates rebuttable presumption property is marital)
- Cartee v. Cartee, 239 P.3d 707 (Alaska 2010) (trial court may rely on party-submitted inventories/values when choosing among them)
- Fortson v. Fortson, 131 P.3d 451 (Alaska 2006) (classification and valuation standards in property division)
- Beal v. Beal, 209 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2009) (standards for credits for post-separation mortgage payments)
- Coffland v. Coffland, 4 P.3d 317 (Alaska 2000) (presumption that debts incurred during marriage are marital absent proof otherwise)