Opinion ID: 2629868
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for bifurcation

Text: Sally argues that the superior court improperly rejected her proposal for a bifurcation of the legal divorce. Specifically, she asked the court to divide the property immediately, but to delay the legal divorce for three years. This arrangement would allow her to continue health insurance as a spouse under George's coverage without having to pay COBRA premiums. The court rejected that request. The court concluded that divorce should be granted when parties inform the court that they are unable to remain married, and that to delay granting divorce for financial or insurance reasons like this would be illegal, ... kind of a fraud. Sally relies upon AS 25.24.155(a)(2) to permit the requested bifurcation. However, that statutory provision is wholly inapplicable to the purposes intended here. Alaska Statute 25.24.155(a)(2) limits the situations in which custody determinations or property divisions in divorce proceedings can be reserved until later. Other statutes specifically permit reservation of custody decisions or property divisions, [27] but no statute permits the reservation of a divorce decree. The superior court's finding that there was an incompatibility of temperament between the parties and that it was impossible for them to live together as husband and wife is not disputed. Under the circumstances, George was entitled to a decree of divorce pursuant to AS 25.24.050(5)(C). Thus, it was not error for the court to refuse the bifurcation request.