Urban v. Urban, 314 P.3d 513

Delbert and Martha Urban divorced after a marriage beginning in 1993; Delbert mortgaged the marital residence to build a yacht, which was later destroyed, and the residence was lost to foreclosure.
At trial the parties agreed on most asset divisions but disputed the value of four parcels of Arizona land and the status of certain stock.
Martha discovered during trial that Delbert owned Stancorp stock he had not disclosed in pretrial disclosures and on which he gave false testimony.
The superior court valued the Arizona land using a county tax assessment ($92,424) over the husband’s broker estimate, treated the undisclosed Stancorp stock as marital property, gave Martha ~63% of marital assets, and awarded spousal support of $1,300/month.
The court also awarded Martha $10,000 in attorney’s fees, citing Delbert’s evasive testimony and lack of cooperation.
On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the land valuation and spousal support award but reversed and remanded the attorney’s fees award and the stock classification for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Martha)	Defendant's Argument (Delbert)	Held
Valuation of Arizona property	County tax assessment is reliable	Broker’s post‑purchase market decline shows much lower value	Affirmed: trial court reasonably relied on tax valuation over broker estimate
Treatment of undisclosed Stancorp stock	Stock should be treated as marital due to nondisclosure and false testimony	Stock predated marriage and is nonmarital; nondisclosure not fatal	Reversed: preclusion was error without considering lesser remedies; remand to determine marital status with possible further evidence
Attorney’s fees award ($10,000)	Fees warranted by vexatious conduct; seeks fees (claimed $35,000 spent)	Fees unsupported and not documented	Reversed and remanded: trial court must document baseline fees, then separately quantify any enhancement for bad faith per required two‑step analysis
Spousal support ($1,300/month)	Needed because property division unable to meet Martha’s needs; Delbert dissipated marital assets	Support excessive given property split and sources of income	Affirmed: findings on incomes, expenses, and dissipation support award; not an abuse of discretion

Barnett v. Barnett, 238 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2010) (standard for reviewing property division, need for findings on support needs)
Beal v. Beal, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (classification review principles)
Ethelbah v. Walker, 225 P.3d 1082 (Alaska 2009) (factual‑finding clear error standard)
Haines v. Cox, 182 P.3d 1140 (Alaska 2008) (attorney fee documentation requirement)
Kowalski v. Kowalski, 806 P.2d 1368 (Alaska 1991) (two‑step process for enhancing fees for misconduct)
Maines v. Kenworth Alaska, Inc., 155 P.3d 318 (Alaska 2007) (preclusion sanctions require findings of willfulness and consideration of lesser sanctions)