Opinion ID: 1120814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Superior Court Abuse its Discretion by Awarding Attorney's Fees to Cogar?

Text: Pugil argues that the superior court erred by awarding attorney's fees to Cogar without correctly assessing the relative economic positions of the parties. Pugil asserts that Cogar enjoys the more favorable economic condition. Cogar responds that the award of attorney's fees was justified because Pugil has had a larger income for the last several years and because he is in better health. An award of attorney's fees in a case between unmarried individuals ... limited to issues of child custody and support is based on the relative economic situations and earning powers of the parties. Bergstrom v. Lindback, 779 P.2d 1235, 1238 (Alaska 1989). The superior court considered Pugil's average adjusted income for the years 1985-87, $28,521, as a representative sample of Pugil's earning capacity. Cogar's adjusted income, based on the financial declaration she filed with the court, was $23,131. Cogar provides the only custodial care for the parties' child, and she is physically impaired which limits her earning capacity. In these circumstances, we hold that an award of partial attorney's fees to Cogar was not an abuse of discretion.