Williams v. Williams, 252 P.3d 998

Phyllis Williams and DeJeaux Williams, divorcing in 2000 after 14 years of marriage, have a child Camerin (born 1995) and reside in Alaska and Texas respectively.
The parties' original divorce decree did not address DeJeaux's future military retirement; in 2001 the court amended the decree to allocate a portion of retirement pay and in 2007 awarded Phyllis 35% of DeJeaux's retirement pay under USFSPA.
Phyllis moved multiple times (2009) to increase her share to 50% and to modify other matters; the superior court denied these motions and explained the calculations.
Visitation has been contentious since 2001, with ongoing orders and frequent motions, including requests for a custody investigator (denied in 2009).
Child support has fluctuated due to DeJeaux's income changes and veteran benefits; the court adjusted obligations several times and ultimately increased to $587/month in 2009, with other motions denied.
Phyllis also alleged bias by the trial judge and sought contempt-related relief for dental expenses; the court denied those requests or found no basis for modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Phyllis's Rule 60(b) motions to reconsider the military division were timely and meritorious	Williams contends misinterpretation under USFSPA warrants relief	Williams argues motions were untimely and meritless	Motions untimely; denied on timeliness and merits
Whether the court properly awarded 35% of DeJeaux's disposable military retired pay	Williams seeks 50% of retirement pay	Current calculation reflects 50% of the marital portion, i.e., 35% of disposable pay	Correct calculation; 35% of disposable pay (50% of marital portion) upheld
Whether the summer 2009 visitation issue remained live or was moot	Phyllis sought to terminate summer 2009 visit	Issue no longer contested due to lapse of time	Moot; not reached
Whether the court abused its discretion by not appointing a custody investigator	Phyllis sought an investigator to assess Camerin's visitation preferences	Investigator not required; court can determine best interests without one	No abuse of discretion; not warranted
Whether the court properly handled child-support calculations and past-due arrears	Phyllis challenges calculation including military/disability benefits and alleged arrears	Court used substantial evidence and did not cancel arrears without judgment	Calculations affirmed; arrears issue not properly before court; no reversal

Doyle v. Doyle, 815 P.2d 366 (Alaska 1991) (military pension division framework; 50% of marital portion)
Chase v. Chase, 662 P.2d 944 (Alaska 1983) (upholding 50% of marital portion for retirement pay earned during marriage)
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546 (Alaska 1962) (Merrill factors guiding unequal division of marital property)
Tillmon v. Tillmon, 189 P.3d 1022 (Alaska 2008) (standards for child-support calculations and modification)
Routh v. Andreassen, 19 P.3d 593 (Alaska 2001) (legal standards for determining income and child support adjustments)
Ward v. Urling, 167 P.3d 48 (Alaska 2007) (circumstances for calculating earning capacity and income sufficiency)