Opinion ID: 2516650
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: It was harmless error to apply divorce law to divide the parties' property.

Text: In dividing the parties' property, the superior court applied the same body of law that would be applied in resolving a property dispute between parties seeking a divorce. The court stated that it [saw] no reason not to look to factors A through I enumerated in AS 25.24.160(a)(4) [the statutory provision governing division of property in a divorce action]. It was error to apply divorce law to divide the parties' property. In Sugg v. Morris, we held that the equitable principles which apply to the judicial division of marital property of a man and woman who had been living together in lawful wedlock or in a bona fide putative marriage are not applicable where the man and woman have been knowingly living in a [non-marital] relationship.... [23] Moreover, AS 25.24.160(a) applies by its terms only to action[s] for divorce or action[s] declaring a marriage void.... As we noted above in Part III.B.1, the property the couple accumulated must be divided in accordance with their intentions. But because the superior court would have reached the same result without relying on divorce law, the error was harmless. Its July 20, 1999 order noted that whether the interests of the parties are determined through applications of the factors enumerated in AS 25.24.160(a)(4) or the principles of partnership law where the relative contributions of the parties cannot be determined and the partners co-habit, the results are the same. The property should be divided equally. Because the superior court found elsewhere that the parties agreed to share in the fruits of their long-term relationship, it would have divided equally the property accumulated during the period of the parties' cohabitation even had it not relied on divorce law.