Opinion ID: 1191708
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The IFQ Is Property Subject to Division if It Is a Marital Asset.

Text: Donald argues that the IFQ conveys no property rights and therefore should not be the subject of a property division. He supports this argument with language from the Federal Register stating that the IFQ regulations do not convey property rights in the fishery resources, that the IFQ program is not irreversible, and that the IFQ program does not establish an entitlement to [quota shares] and IFQ, which, if `taken' by the government, requires just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 58 Fed.Reg. 59,400 (1993). The superior court never attempted to divide any property interest in the fishery resources themselves. It could not have, since fish do not become the property of individuals until reduced to capture. Instead, the court merely divided the interest in the IFQ that has value independent of any fish that may or may not be caught. Furthermore, the fact that an interest in an IFQ does not constitute property for Fifth Amendment purposes is not determinative of whether such an interest is property for the purpose of a marital property division. In Moffitt this court observed that business good will should be considered in a property division if the evidence suggests that it has value and is marketable. 749 P.2d at 347. The same considerations are relevant here. An interest in an IFQ, while it may not be property under the Fifth Amendment, has value and is marketable. The IFQ has a value independent of the value of the fishery resources because it grants the holder the right to compete in an industry to which entry is limited. Furthermore, the holder is free to market this independent value, for a person holding an IFQ may sell, lease, or otherwise transfer all or part of their [quota share] or IFQ to another person [] in accordance with [] transfer restrictions and procedures.... 50 CFR § 676.21 (1994). Finally, we see no reason why Donald's interest in the IFQ should not be the subject of a finding that it is divisible marital property when a limited entry fishing permit [2] can be the subject of such a finding. [3] See Brosnan v. Brosnan, 817 P.2d 478, 479-80 (Alaska 1991); Thomas v. Thomas, 815 P.2d 374, 376-78 (Alaska 1991). While the federal IFQ program and the state system of limited entry permits differ in various ways, interests held through either regulatory scheme are of value for essentially the same basic reason, namely, for the right of limited access to fishery resources they provide. An IFQ creates a property interest which, if marital, is subject to division.