Opinion ID: 2581730
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Relationship Between the Property Division and the Alimony Award

Text: Avis claims that the superior court conflated the property and alimony issues in its oral and written findings. Usually the parties' assets and liabilities must be divided without regard to any alimony award. We held in Ulsher v. Ulsher [18] that [a]n alimony award is separate from a property division. Payments that do not divide property cannot be considered part of a property division. [19] The record suggests that the property and alimony awards did not respect this distinction. The oral findings stated: I think that the allocation of the marital assets to Mr. Lumpkin with a  the $500.00 payment over four years is fair and equitable under the circumstances as long as Baca (ph) Grande is  is given to Mrs. Lumpkin. This suggests that the property division may have been used to balance the legally unrelated alimony award. [20] Moreover, the written findings and conclusions awarding the Baca Grande property to Avis contained the following provision in the part titled Rehabilitative Spousal Support: [I]f the parties agree, the husband may continue to pay the sum of $500.00 per month in spousal support for an additional two (2) years, in exchange for the return of the Colorado (Baca Grande Lot # 1232) property to him. The oral findings included a similar provision. Thus, if Lindsay agreed, Avis could trade a piece of property worth $9,900 when they separated for two years more of alimony valued at $12,000 when received. Such a trade-off was inappropriate if it was intended to resolve Avis's pretrial request for extended alimony. Courts may permissibly provide for periodic payments to effect equitable property divisions, [21] and may divide property in a way that helps a spouse become financially independent. But the trade-off language used here implies that the alimony and property division issues may not have been treated independently. And if the trade-off provision was meant to be a substitute for alimony, it was not contingent on Avis's need, but turned on Lindsay's agreement. On remand, the parties' property must be divided without regard to alimony.