Opinion ID: 1242354
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Superior Court Erred in Classifying Credit Card Debt Incurred by Robin after Separation as Marital Debt.

Text: The next issue involves certain credit card debt incurred by Robin before the superior court entered temporary orders but after the parties' separation on September 26, 1993. [11] The superior court stated: [P]rior to the time that the court entered temporary orders, substantial credit card debt was incurred by Ms. Dodson since she had no other way to support herself. The court concludes that this post-separation credit card [debt] is marital debt. Until the time of temporary orders, the parties had not ceased functioning as a separate economic unit. The court awarded the full amount of the debt to Robin in its calculation of Robin's share of the marital property. Jim relies upon Ramsey v. Ramsey, 834 P.2d 807 (Alaska 1992), and asserts that the superior court erred in characterizing the credit card debt as marital debt. We agree. In Ramsey, the parties physically separated in the summer of 1988, but the trial court concluded that due to the extensive commingling of finances, the parties continued to function economically as a single unit until the summer of 1990. Ramsey, 834 P.2d at 808. Thus, the trial court divided the parties' marital assets as of May 11, 1990. See id. We held that the trial court's economic unit finding was clearly erroneous. Id. We noted that the parties' permanent separation in the summer of 1988 represented `a final separation that [was] intended to, and [did] in fact, lead to a divorce.' Id. at 809 (alteration in original) (quoting Schanck v. Schanck, 717 P.2d 1, 3 (Alaska 1986)). We also stated that Sandra Ramsey's continuing economic dependence alone does not indicate the continuance of the marital economic unit. Id. In this case, the superior court did not clearly indicate why it concluded that the Dodsons continued functioning as an economic unit until the time of temporary orders. It appears that the court based its economic unit finding upon its conclusion that between the parties' separation and the time of temporary orders, Robin had no other way to support herself. However, Ramsey determines that a trial court may not permissibly conclude that parties continue to function economically as a marital unit after the date of permanent separation just because one of the parties is economically dependent upon the other. See Ramsey, 834 P.2d at 809. Therefore, we conclude that the superior court erred in characterizing the credit card debt as marital. [12]