Opinion ID: 1197842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Adequacy of the Superior Court's Findings

Text: Alaska Statute 25.24.160(a)(4) lists nine factors which the trial court must consider in dividing marital and non-marital property. In making its property division, the trial court is required to articulate sufficiently specific factual findings to indicate the basis for the division. Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987). One of the primary functions of this requirement is to allow this court to engage in a meaningful review and thus assure that the trial court has considered the appropriate factors. See Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962). Thus, the trial court need not make findings as to every factor, nor do these findings need to be exhaustive, but where the parties raise significant issues regarding particular factors, the trial court must address these issues in its findings. Brooks v. Brooks, 677 P.2d 1230, 1233 (Alaska 1984). The superior court's division of the property was guided by its consideration of a number of factors. First, the court concluded that Fran's medical condition was not so severe that she would be unable to work. Second, the court found that once she was able to work her earning potential would be greater than Steve's. And finally, the court noted that its relatively large award of separate property made a significantly unequal property division unnecessary. We conclude that the superior court's findings addressed the salient issues raised at trial, and are supported by the record. Additionally, based on these findings, we cannot say that the property division is clearly unjust. Addressing the particular issues raised by Fran, the superior court adequately considered the source of the assets in determining whether particular assets were marital or separate property. Additionally, the written findings clearly discuss the fact that numerous assets originated with Fran's inheritance from her mother but were treated as marital property. In light of the fact that most of the property which Fran inherited was classified as separate property and awarded to Fran, we conclude that these findings were sufficient. With respect to Fran's health, the superior court discussed, in its written findings, her primary problem  RSD. The superior court also concluded in its oral findings that RSD would probably not prevent Fran from going back to work and that the stress-related component of RSD would probably diminish as a result of the conclusion of divorce proceedings. Thus, the superior court considered the primary economic impact of Fran's condition, and, as discussed in greater detail in the next section, the court's view that Fran would be able to work around the condition finds support in the record. The court relied primarily on the testimony of Fran's own expert to determine her future earning capacity. [6] If one credits her expert, which the trial court was entitled to do, the record supports the finding that her earning capacity will be at least comparable to Steve's. With respect to Fran's present financial condition, the superior court made no specific findings as to her post-separation medical debts or the costs of health insurance [7] and her rehabilitation program. However, the court did make a general finding that the large separate property award was sufficient to meet her rehabilitation expenses and her special needs. Our review of this issue leads us to conclude that Fran was awarded sufficient assets to satisfy all of her present liabilities, finance her rehabilitation program, and meet her future living expenses (including the cost of medical insurance) during the rehabilitation period. [8] We conclude that the superior court's findings address the main issues raised by the parties below in a manner sufficient to permit adequate review. In light of Fran's failure to demonstrate that her needs have not been met as a result of this distribution, and our conclusion in the following section that as a result of the rehabilitation program which she proposes she will have adequate financial resources, we conclude that the property distribution is not clearly unjust.