Source: http://www.touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-7223.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:32:27+00:00

Document:
Judicial District, Anchorage, Patrick J. McKay, Judge.
Appearances:  Kara A. Nyquist, Anchorage, for Appellant.
marital property.  Kenneth now appeals.
clarify the law in Alaska on transmutation by implied interspousal gift.
v.  Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257, 1262 (Alaska 1992))).
2                   Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453, 458-59 (Alaska 2013).
3                   See Horning v. Horning, 389 P.3d 61, 64 (Alaska 2017) (citing Schmitz v.
(Alaska 2005) (citing Lewis v. Lewis, 785 P.2d 550, 558 (Alaska 1990)).
only "when the balancing of the equities between the parties requires it."
change, or transmute, into marital property.
4         Nicholson v.   Wolfe,   974   P.2d   417,   423   (Alaska   1999)   (citing  Johns   v.
Johns,  945  P.2d   1222,   1225  (Alaska   1997)).
7         Sparks  v.  Sparks,  233 P.3d 1091, 1094  (Alaska 2010) (citing  Sampson  v.
Sampson,  14  P.3d  272,  276  (Alaska  2000)),  overruled  on  other  grounds  by  Engstrom  v.
Engstrom,  350  P.3d  766,  771  (Alaska  2015).
9         Id. at 1094, 1096.
332 (quoting Harrower, 71 P.3d at 857).
relevant intent is that of the "married parties" or the "married couple." That is incorrect.
gift.12           Second, and more subtly, it fails to define what it means to intend to "treat"
71 P.3d at 857;                        Martin, 52 P.3d at 727 & n.8;                                                 Green, 29 P.3d at 857;                                    Lundquist v.
(Alaska 2005) (quoting                                   Schmitz, 88 P.3d at 1125).
actual intent to give that property to the marital estate.").
property in the event of a divorce                    .
transmutation cases and set out four "relevant factors" for "determining whether . . .
15         Sparks, 233 P.3d at 1094.
16         Schmitz, 88 P.3d at 1125.
17         882 P.2d 909, 916 (Alaska 1994) (citations omitted) (quoting McDaniel v.
McDaniel, 829 P.2d 303, 306 (Alaska 1992)).
relevant in affirming or reversing that finding.
to suggest that it could be answered by looking at the Cox factors alone.
intended to donate the condominium to the marital estate.
18          Abood v. Abood                , 119 P.3d 980, 988 (Alaska 2005).
alterations in original) (quoting Martin v. Martin, 52 P.3d 724, 728 (Alaska 2002)).
20           See Cox, 882 P.2d at 916.
350 P.3d 766, 771 (Alaska 2015).
couple married in 2010, and Dianna filed for divorce in 2015.
Kenneth and Dianna largely kept their finances separate.
to donate the condominium to the marital estate.
accounts in addition to their individual accounts.
account without Dianna's financial contributions to other parts of the marriage.
court clearly erred in this case.
condominium to the marital estate.
23           Beals  v.  Beals,  303  P.3d  453,  459  (Alaska  2013).
24           Abood  v.  Abood ,   119  P.3d  980,  984  (Alaska  2005).
The other evidence supporting a finding of donative intent was minimal.
determining whether Kenneth possessed donative intent.
finding and remand this case for further proceedings.
holding does not preclude Dianna from being awarded a share of the condominium.
29        Cox  v.  Cox,  882  P.2d  909,  916  (Alaska   1994).
30        Odom  v.  Odom,   141  P.3d  324,  333  (Alaska  2006).
parties]  began  dating  or  cohabitating."
down the mortgage on separate property creates a marital interest in that property.
reconsider its characterization of the loans from Kenneth's father.
88 P.3d 1116, 1125 (Alaska 2004).
have not briefed this issue; we do not decide at this time whether to adopt this approach.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.