Justia Alaska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The husband in this case was ordered to pay spousal support for an indefinite time period. More than three years later after that order, before a different judge, the wife sought relief for the husband's failure to pay any spousal support. The husband moved motion to set aside the original spousal support award, arguing the judgment was void: (1) for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction at trial; and (2) because he had not received due process. The superior court granted the husband's motion. The wife appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: the Court found that the husband used Rule 60(b)(4) not to attack a void judgment, but as a substitute for a timely appeal. Furthermore, the Court found the husband had adequate notice of the issues to be litigated, was given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give testimony. Therefore the Court concluded the trial court granted husband's motion in error. View "Blaufuss v. Ball" on Justia Law

At the heart of this appeal, a custody dispute between Appellant Aaron Rosenblum and Appellee Angelica Perales. The trial court awarded appellee custody, child support and interim attorney's fees. Appellant argued that the court's custody decision was flawed for a lack of the requisite findings, gave disproportionate weight to a single factor, and was based on an improper factor. Furthermore, appellant argued the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the child support order and in the award of attorney's fees. After its review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed decisions on child custody and attorney's fees. The Court remanded the case for clarification on child support. View "Rosenblum v. Perales" on Justia Law

Appellant David McCarter claimed the superior court erred by failing to make statute-mandated findings in his appeal related to the enforcement of a property settlement agreement in his divorce from Appellee Deborah McCarter. Appellant also argued that the superior court erred in failing to vacate certain ambiguous provisions of that agreement or to allow for its modification. Finding no error in the superior court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McCarter v. McCarter" on Justia Law

Appellant Patricia Beals appealed the superior court's property division in her divorce from Appellee Mark Beals. She argued that the court incorrectly characterized a lot that she and Mark jointly purchase with cash obtained from refinancing the marital home as separate property. Mark owned the marital home before the parties married. In addition, Patricia argued the court erroneously valued the mortgage on the marital home at the time of separation rather than at the time of trial. Because the entire value of the jointly titled lot should have been characterized as marital property, and because the home's equity should have been valued as of the time of trial, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Beals v. Beals" on Justia Law

Christopher C. and Therese C.'s parental rights were terminated as to the couple's four children. The trial court relied primarily on evidence that neither parent had acquired the basic skills necessary to parent their children despite more than a year of training by the Department of Health & Social Services' Office of Children's Services. The Supreme Court after its review concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore the Court affirmed the termination of the parties' parental rights. View "Christopher C. v. Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services" on Justia Law

The Office of Children's Services (OCS) placed a Native child in a non-Native foster home while working with the other towards reunification. Over two years later, the superior court terminated the parents' parental rights. The child's maternal grandmother and the tribe sought to enforce the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) placement preferences. The foster parents petitioned for adoption. The superior court found good cause to deviate from the ICWA preference, and that the grandmother was not a suitable placement for the child. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the tribe argued the superior court erred by applying the wrong standard of proof for the good cause determination; that the court's findings were not supported by sufficient evidence; and that the findings were not sufficient to support the good cause determination. The Supreme Court found that the ICWA implicitly mandated that good cause to deviate from ICWA's adoptive placement preferences be proved by clear and convincing evidence. To the extent prior cases held otherwise, they were overruled. Therefore the superior court was vacated here and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Native Village of Tununak v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Five years after divorcing, the parties in this case sought to modify their divorce decree. The Superior Court found that circumstances had not changed sufficiently for either to justify modification of the child custody agreement, but the court did allow changes in visitation, child support, life insurance and attorney's fees. The father appealed those changes. Because the child support modification was erroneously calculated, the Supreme Court reversed that portion of the Superior Court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The lower court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Martin v. Martin" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on the custody and child support arrangement between Ronny M. and Nanette H. with respect to their two minor children, Ronny Jr. and Lavar, both of whom were born in Florida. Ronny and Nanette dated for several years after the births of their children but broke up in 2002 following a significant history of domestic violence by Ronny against Nanette. In 2002 the Florida Department of Children and Families became involved and set up a case plan that significantly limited Ronny's visitation rights. Ronny complied with the case plan and eventually worked his way up to unsupervised visitation with the children, but in 2007 he stopped seeing or contacting them altogether. In 2009 Nanette married and moved to Alaska with the children without informing Ronny. In 2010 Nanette filed a complaint in which she sought sole legal and primary physical custody of the children. Nanette also requested child support. Ronny opposed, requesting that the parties share joint legal custody and that he be awarded primary physical custody. The superior court awarded primary physical custody to Nanette and a modified form of joint legal custody to Nanette and Ronny. The superior court also granted Ronny summer visitation rights, provided that he pay for the travel expenses, and ordered Ronny to pay child support. Ronny appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's child custody and support award, but reversed and remanded regarding the allocation of visitation expenses. The superior court was affirmed in all other respects. View "Ronny M. v. Nanette H." on Justia Law

A mother, appearing pro se, appealed a child support order. She claimed that the superior court erred in requiring her to pay child support to a father who shared physical custody and erred in refusing to allow a deduction for her direct support of two children from a prior relationship. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the support order was justified despite the shared custody, but the Court vacated the order and remanded the case back to the superior court for consideration of the deduction that Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 allowed for the mothers' direct support of her other children. View "O'Neal v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Jerry Scott and Camilla Hussein-Scott divorced, signing a marital settlement agreement requiring Jerry to pay alimony every month. On the line reserved for the alimony termination date, Jerry wrote "12/2/2020," which was the 18th birthday of their youngest daughter. On the next line, in a space left blank for "other specifics," Jerry wrote, "To be paid until Yasmine Scott's 18th birthday or until remarriage." Yasmine is the couple's middle daughter, and her 18th birthday is August 1, 2015. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Jerry's alimony obligation ended on the earlier date or the later one. "Relying on the well-established rule that the more important or principal clause controls, we conclude that Jerry's support obligation terminates on December 2, 2020, or upon Camilla's remarriage if earlier." View "Hussein-Scott v. Scott" on Justia Law