Opinion ID: 2500657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jim's Equitable Claims Are Properly Determined In A Divorce Context.

Text: Jim did not request an equitable remedy in his original complaint. In a reply brief filed with the superior court, however, he argued that even if AS 34.15.010 did not protect his interest, he had a protectable equitable interest in the Alpine Woods property. He suggested that the transfer to the Krafts could be set aside through one of a number of theories: constructive trust, resulting trust, fraudulent conveyance, or through general equitable principles. The superior court declined to grant Jim an equitable remedy, and on appeal Jim argues that [i]t was error for the trial court to refuse Jim such a necessary and proper remedy. Jim contends that Terrie sold the property to the Krafts with awareness that Jim did not agree and for significantly less than the property was worth. But Jim's complaint did not raise this claim against Terrie, and Jim has not explained how the Krafts themselves might have acted unjustly or in bad faith. Indeed, Jim refers to the Krafts as third parties in discussing his equitable claims. [30] We agree with the superior court that whichever spouse is favored by the balance of equities, a divorce proceeding is the most appropriate setting to adjudicate the issue. The trial judge in the divorce case will be able to assess a number of factors in deciding whether to categorize the Alpine Woods property as marital or separate and in distributing the proceeds from the sale equitably. [31] If Jim maintains that the purchase price was unreasonable, he can argue that an unreasonable depletion of marital assets took place. [32] It was therefore appropriate for the superior court to decline to adjudicate Jim's equitable claims in the context of his action against the Krafts.