Tomal v. Anderson
426 P.3d 915
| Alaska | 2018Background
- Tomal and Anderson lived together from 1998 on the Zimovia property; they pooled income into a joint account for household expenses but later separated finances (each filed separate tax returns by 2005).
- By 2012 their marriage-like relationship ended when Anderson said she would no longer sleep under the same roof; they nonetheless continued to live on and jointly maintain the Zimovia property.
- Tomal sued in 2016 asserting misappropriation and seeking accounting; Anderson counterclaimed for domestic-partnership property division. A bench trial was held in 2017.
- The superior court found a domestic partnership (1998–2012), classified and valued partnership property (including part of Tomal’s pension), awarded Tomal the Zimovia property, and ordered an equalization payment to Anderson of just under $100,000.
- The court denied Tomal reimbursement for post-separation property expenses, admitted a police report (largely excluding hearsay), and applied the divorce-exception framework to limit Rule 82 attorney’s fees, awarding Anderson modest costs (~$500).
- Both parties appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed most rulings but found several valuation/classification errors and remanded to recalculate the equalization payment.
Issues
| Issue | Tomal's Argument | Anderson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the domestic partnership end? | It did not end in 2012; continued cohabitation shows ongoing partnership | Partnership ended in 2012 when Anderson stopped sharing the same living quarters | Court’s finding that partnership ended in 2012 was not clearly erroneous and is affirmed |
| Classification of specific assets (pension, boat, truck) | Pension should not be partnership property absent specific intent to share; boat is separate property | Pension is partnership property; boat and truck are partnership property | Court affirmed treating pension portion accrued during partnership as partnership property; boat was separate; truck was misclassified as partnership property and must be treated as separate |
| Valuation of excavator | Trial court undervalued excavator ($1,000) despite evidence of $6,000 offer | Trial court valuation stands | Court held valuing excavator at $1,000 was clear error; $6,000 was better market-value evidence |
| Post-separation contribution (reimbursement for expenses) | Entitled to credit for half of post-2012 property payments as cotenant contribution | No reimbursement; parties continued to contribute roughly equally (cash by Tomal, maintenance by Anderson) | Contribution is equitable and discretionary; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying Tomal contribution |
| Attorney’s fees under Civil Rule 82 (divorce exception) | Entitled to prevailing-party fees; divorce exception shouldn’t apply | Divorce-exception applies because this was initial division after breakup; award should consider economic disparity | Court held the divorce-exception may apply to initial property divisions after break-up; its application here was appropriate; modest costs to Anderson were not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Collins, 812 P.2d 951 (Alaska 1991) (post-separation cotenancy/contribution principles; contribution may be awarded for post-separation payments)
- Boulds v. Nielsen, 323 P.3d 58 (Alaska 2014) (domestic-partnership property distribution governed by parties’ intent; broad intent can justify equal division)
- D.M. v. D.A., 885 P.2d 94 (Alaska 1994) (intent controls classification of domestic-partnership property; ordinary property rules apply after separation)
- Reed v. Parrish, 286 P.3d 1054 (Alaska 2012) (equitable factors can justify denying contribution; protective-order context explained post-separation payments)
- Sanders v. Barth, 12 P.3d 766 (Alaska 2000) (Rule 82 divorce exception: attorney’s fees based on relative economic situations, not prevailing-party status)
- Bishop v. Clark, 54 P.3d 804 (Alaska 2002) (domestic-partnership property distribution must follow parties’ intent; caution about applying Rule 82 without analysis)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 815 P.2d 366 (Alaska 1991) (fair market value standard for asset valuation in family/property contexts)