Opinion ID: 2584183
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Brooke Waived Her Claims to Past Child Support.

Text: Brooke and Donna argue that Brooke is entitled to reimbursement for past support and expenses under Matthews v. Matthews [44] and that the superior court erred by failing to address Brooke's Matthews claims. Jason responds that Brooke abandoned these claims by failing to pursue them in the superior court. We agree with Jason that Brooke abandoned her claim. Ordinarily, a party seeking to raise an issue on appeal must have raised it and offered evidence on it in the trial court. [45] Therefore, issues not properly raised in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered on appeal. [46] This rule is based on the belief that permitting a party to claim error regarding a claim not raised and litigated below is both unfair to the trial court and unjust to the opposing litigant. [47] Brooke listed a cause of action for back child support in a counterclaim against Jason filed in November 2005. She did not, however, pursue the matter any further in the superior court. Brooke did not submit any motions regarding this issue, made no claims to child support in her trial brief, and failed to present evidence or request findings regarding past child support during the custody hearing itself. These failures are especially glaring in light of the fact that Brooke was represented by counsel in the later stages of the proceedings below, most notably during the custody trial. Brooke and Donna imply that the superior court should have informed Brooke of the need to address this issue before it issued a final judgment. Citing Lane v. City of Kotzebue, [48] she argues that a trial court may not issue a final judgment without addressing all of the issues raised by the parties. . . . We do not believe that Lane goes so far. In Lane a litigant pursued a trespass claim that the superior court held needed to be pled as an inverse condemnation claim. [49] Lane failed to amend his pleadings after being instructed to do so and the superior court granted a final judgment in the case. [50] We reversed, holding that [t]he court never addressed [the inverse condemnation] claim on its merits, and never dismissed the trespass claim for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Lane had no warning that the court might dismiss this claim before it entered the September 1997 final order. [51] This case is distinguishable from Lane because Brooke did not take any steps to adequately raise the claim after initially pleading it. The duty to ensure that each of a party's claims are litigated generally rests with the party advancing the claims. [52] We decline to follow an expansive reading of Lane that would require the superior court to ensure that each claim contained in the parties' pleadings has been properly raised before issuing a final decision. This burden properly lies with the litigants, not the courts. Because Brooke failed to pursue her Matthews claim after raising it at the outset of the case, we conclude that she abandoned that claim.