Opinion ID: 2261402
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Courtship costs incurred before marriage are presumptively separate debt.

Text: We have repeatedly held that whenever possible a trial court should provide for the needs of a divorced spouse through a disproportionate division of marital assets; awards of spousal support are disfavored and only appropriate when the marital estate is insufficient to meet the needs of a disadvantaged party. [15] This precedent requires that we examine Alena's challenge to the court's property division before reviewing her arguments challenging the adequacy of the court's award of spousal support. The amount of spousal support to which Alena is entitled, if any, is dependent upon the value of the marital property awarded to her and whether her needs can be met with an unequal division of the marital estate. [16] A trial court's equitable division of a marital estate is a three-step process. First, the trial court must determine what specific property is available for distribution. Second, the court must find the value of this property. Third, it must decide how an allocation can be made most equitably. [17] Here, the trial court acknowledged Timothy's payment of travel and legal expenses during the courtship and the pre-marital immigration process as one of the factors it relied upon in making its division of marital property. Alena argues that the trial court erred by including the debt Timothy incurred during the parties' courtship (on his travel to Belarus, Alena and Dasha's relocation, and the legal aspects of sponsorship and immigration) as marital debt. We agree. [18] Under AS 25.24.160, courts are generally called upon to divide property acquired only during marriage. [19] Courts may look to property acquired before the marriage when the balancing of the equities between the parties requires it, but such property should not be treated as part of the marital estate and available for division unless the court specifically finds that balancing of the equities requires invasion of the premarital holding. [20] Here, the trial court did not invade a marital asset, but it did treat a debt that was incurred prior to the marriage as a part of the marital estate. We have never held that courtship expenses are properly considered marital debt, and the trial court made no findings explaining why it treated the courtship expenses as marital debt. We conclude it was error to include courtship expenses in the marital estate absent specific findings explaining why the balancing of the equities required such inclusion. The trial court was aware of the great disparity in the parties' incomes, and found that [f]or that reason the greater percentage of the marital assets should be distributed to Alena. The superior court also entered a support award in her favor. But because the superior court's assessment of the total marital estate available for distribution was skewed by consideration of the courtship costs, its calculation of spousal support was based on a faulty premise. On remand, the superior court should reassess the size of the net marital estate and consider whether a disproportionate award of property can satisfy Alena's needs for spousal support. If the court determines that spousal support is warranted, it should enter findings regarding the appropriate amount and duration of Timothy's support obligation.