Young v. Kelly
334 P.3d 153
Alaska2014Background
- Anna Young and David Kelly divorced in 1985; their dissolution assigned no marital property and awarded the fishing vessel (F/V Arrow) to David.
- In 1993–98 the federal IFQ program was created; IFQ shares were allocated based on landings in certain qualifying/base years (1984–1990 for halibut), and David qualified using his five highest base years, one of which was 1984 when Anna and David fished together.
- In 1995 David proposed an agreement to avoid litigation over IFQs; Anna alleges David agreed to pay her a marital share (or pay money on request and eventually a lump-sum when she was ready to start a business); David made recurring payments from 1995 until about 2008, then stopped.
- Anna sued in 2011 for breach of contract and promissory estoppel and moved under Alaska Civ. R. 60(b)(6) in 2012 to reopen the 1985 property division to allocate IFQs as marital property.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to David, finding (1) most alleged contract descriptions were too indefinite except possibly a promise to pay Anna her marital share; (2) IFQs were not marital property because they were acquired after dissolution; (3) therefore Anna had no marital share to enforce and Rule 60(b)(6) relief was unwarranted.
- Alaska Supreme Court affirmed: contract claims largely indefinite; even if a promise to pay a marital share could be definite enough, there was no marital IFQ interest to be awarded because the IFQs were acquired post-marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Young) | Defendant's Argument (Kelly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties formed an enforceable contract to pay Anna a marital share or payments on request | Young: David promised her a marital share (or payments on reasonable request and a future lump-sum); she relied on payments and forwent litigation | Kelly: No definite terms (amount, duration, percentage); statute of frauds bars an oral agreement; promissory estoppel inapplicable | Court: Most descriptions too indefinite to enforce except a possible promise to pay a marital share; promissory estoppel requires a clear, definitive promise and cannot rescue the other indefinite formulations |
| Whether IFQs are marital property subject to division | Young: Marital labor in 1984 (a base year) increased the value of the IFQs; equitable distribution requires allocating that marital-generated value | Kelly: IFQs were acquired after divorce and thus are separate property; no contractual or vested right existed at divorce | Court: IFQs were acquired post-marriage (no contractual expectancy during marriage); therefore not marital and no marital share existed |
| Whether full-performance/part-performance or statute of frauds exceptions apply | Young: Payments and conduct constituted part/full performance or estoppel that remove statute of frauds bar | Kelly: Even with payments, the core agreement lacks requisite definiteness; statute of frauds not overcome because no enforceable contract | Court: Did not need to resolve statute-of-frauds questions because IFQs are not marital; full/part performance not determinative given lack of marital property |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) relief to reopen 1985 dissolution is warranted | Young: Creation of IFQ program is extraordinary; court should reopen to allocate marital share arising from marital labor in base years | Kelly: No basis to reopen because IFQs are not marital property | Court: Reopening not justified because quotas are not marital property; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013) (standard for classifying marital property and review of trial-court characterization)
- Laing v. Laing, 741 P.2d 649 (Alaska 1987) (nonvested pension rights can be marital because they are deferred compensation earned during marriage)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 928 P.2d 597 (Alaska 1996) (IFQs are marital to the extent entitlement was earned during the marriage)
- McGee v. McGee, 974 P.2d 983 (Alaska 1999) (Rule 60(b)(6) can be used to reopen a dissolution when an extraordinary post-dissolution development like IFQ creation occurs)