Opinion ID: 1309775
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Palmer property

Text: Doug argues that Judge Carlson erroneously treated the Palmer property as entirely a marital asset. Doug argues that Judge Taylor correctly held that 83.2% of the Palmer property was his separate, premarital property, and should be awarded to him. Judge Taylor apparently determined that 16.8% of the payments for the Palmer property was made from marital assets. [2] Therefore, he held that only 16.8% of the current value of the Palmer property was a marital asset. The trial court may invade the separate, premarital property of one spouse when necessary to balance the equities between the parties, or when the parties treated such properties as joint holdings in which each took an active interest in the ongoing maintenance, management and control of [the] assets. Wanberg, 664 P.2d at 571; see Rosson v. Rosson, 635 P.2d 469, 471 (Alaska 1981) (spouses agreed to put everything in one pot and acted as one economic unit). In the latter circumstance, invasion of the premarital assets may be mandatory. Wanberg, 664 P.2d at 571. Judge Carlson's decision to divide the entire Palmer property as a marital asset was not an abuse of his discretion because the parties treated the property as a joint holding in which each took a similar, active interest. See Burgess v. Burgess, 710 P.2d 417 (Alaska 1985); Rosson, 635 P.2d at 471. Both Doug and Marsha were named on the deed of trust note on the whole property. They lived on the property as their joint personal residence throughout the nine years of the marriage, excepting times when one or both were temporarily in Aniak. The Palmer property was part of the business; for example, all the house utilities were in the business name, and the property was the situs for the business's heavy equipment. We conclude that Marsha and Doug considered the property an asset of the business for which each had equal responsibility and equal rights.