Opinion ID: 1118335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the court fail to equitably allocate the marital assets?

Text: Billie claims that the court failed to equitably allocate the marital assets. Relying upon his arguments that the court failed to consider many marital assets and failed to consider his interim support payments, Billie argues that the court did not achieve its goal of giving thirty percent of the marital assets to Billie. In reality, Billie argues, he received less than zero percent of the marital assets. The court's decision reveals that it carefully considered the factors for determining an equitable division of marital assets which were set forth in Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 n. 4 (Alaska 1962). [4] As such, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the property. [5] We recognize, however, that the court may alter its disposition of the marital property after it takes into account the Subaru and the mortgage payments made by Billie.