Opinion ID: 1156814
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the Court Err in Failing to Include in the Marital Estate a $24,000 Commission Earned by Jay Hartland Prior to the Date of Evaluation?

Text: Patricia argues that Jay had a transaction cancelled and then reinstated after the divorce so as to retain his commission as separate property. Before trial, Patricia learned of the cancellation of the impending transaction and argued at trial that Jay was manipulating his compensation so as to avoid division of the commission. In its findings the superior court noted: [T]here is no evidence in the record to support the contention that plaintiff did anything wrong with respect to the $500,000 transaction. The court has no equitable concern over plaintiff's conduct with regard to that sale... . The Court will not speculate about the cause of the cancellation and finds that there was no calculated policy of income-deferment. This factual finding is properly reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if after reviewing the entire record the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Martens v. Metzgar, 591 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1979). Considering the record before Judge Craske, it cannot be said that the court's findings are clearly erroneous. The parties' argument over subsequent evidence of the transaction's reinstatement and the reasons for it were never properly presented to the trial court. Patricia first raised the issue as part of her motion for attorney's fees. Jay responded in his opposition papers, and attached his affidavit and that of the customer purchasing the annuity explaining why the transaction was cancelled and then reinstated. Patricia also raised the issue in her opposition to Jay's motion for a new trial. She indicated that if the court granted a new trial on the issue of the retirement benefits, then she would be forced to seek a similar reopening of the issue of the ... $24,000 commission. The superior court never ruled on the issue of the new evidence as to the commission's reinstatement. Since it was not properly raised and not considered by the superior court, the issue is not properly before us on appeal.