Opinion ID: 2261402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spousal Support Was Incorrectly Calculated Under State Law.

Text: Alena argues that the superior court abused its discretion under Alaska law because its award of spousal support: (1) was premised upon a property award which erroneously included Timothy's courtship costs as a marital debt; (2) was not based upon sufficiently specific findings; and (3) did not properly consider her rehabilitative needs. She also argues that the court's findings regarding her comparative welfare before and after marriage to Timothy and the possibility of her return to Belarus are erroneous. We agree that the spousal support award was premised upon a flawed property award and that additional findings are necessary to allow review of the court's award of spousal support.
We have repeatedly held that whenever possible a trial court should provide for the needs of a divorced spouse through a disproportionate division of marital assets; awards of spousal support are disfavored and only appropriate when the marital estate is insufficient to meet the needs of a disadvantaged party. [15] This precedent requires that we examine Alena's challenge to the court's property division before reviewing her arguments challenging the adequacy of the court's award of spousal support. The amount of spousal support to which Alena is entitled, if any, is dependent upon the value of the marital property awarded to her and whether her needs can be met with an unequal division of the marital estate. [16] A trial court's equitable division of a marital estate is a three-step process. First, the trial court must determine what specific property is available for distribution. Second, the court must find the value of this property. Third, it must decide how an allocation can be made most equitably. [17] Here, the trial court acknowledged Timothy's payment of travel and legal expenses during the courtship and the pre-marital immigration process as one of the factors it relied upon in making its division of marital property. Alena argues that the trial court erred by including the debt Timothy incurred during the parties' courtship (on his travel to Belarus, Alena and Dasha's relocation, and the legal aspects of sponsorship and immigration) as marital debt. We agree. [18] Under AS 25.24.160, courts are generally called upon to divide property acquired only during marriage. [19] Courts may look to property acquired before the marriage when the balancing of the equities between the parties requires it, but such property should not be treated as part of the marital estate and available for division unless the court specifically finds that balancing of the equities requires invasion of the premarital holding. [20] Here, the trial court did not invade a marital asset, but it did treat a debt that was incurred prior to the marriage as a part of the marital estate. We have never held that courtship expenses are properly considered marital debt, and the trial court made no findings explaining why it treated the courtship expenses as marital debt. We conclude it was error to include courtship expenses in the marital estate absent specific findings explaining why the balancing of the equities required such inclusion. The trial court was aware of the great disparity in the parties' incomes, and found that [f]or that reason the greater percentage of the marital assets should be distributed to Alena. The superior court also entered a support award in her favor. But because the superior court's assessment of the total marital estate available for distribution was skewed by consideration of the courtship costs, its calculation of spousal support was based on a faulty premise. On remand, the superior court should reassess the size of the net marital estate and consider whether a disproportionate award of property can satisfy Alena's needs for spousal support. If the court determines that spousal support is warranted, it should enter findings regarding the appropriate amount and duration of Timothy's support obligation.
Alena argues that the superior court's award of spousal support was not supported by adequate findings of fact. In Alaska, spousal support is governed by AS 25.24.160. This statute provides that a court may award spousal support for a limited or indefinite period of time, in gross or in installments, as may be just and necessary without regard to which of the parties is in fault; such an award must fairly allocate the economic effect of divorce. [21] Before calculating spousal support, a court must consider: (A) the length of the marriage and station in life of the parties during the marriage; (B) the age and health of the parties; (C) the earning capacity of the parties, including their educational backgrounds, training, employment skills, work experiences, length of absence from the job market, and custodial responsibilities for children during the marriage; (D) the financial condition of the parties, including the availability and cost of health insurance; (E) the conduct of the parties, including whether there has been unreasonable depletion of marital assets; (F) the division of property under (4) of this subsection; and (G) other factors the court determines to be relevant in each individual case;[ [22] ] We have held that a trial court's award of spousal support must `be accompanied by adequate findings, particularly with respect to the financial needs and abilities of both parties.' [23] Although a trial court need not make findings regarding every factor, we have remanded awards of alimony when there is an insufficient analysis of the needs of the alimony recipient or the means of the paying party. [24] Support awards are generally of two types: reorientation and rehabilitative. The purpose of reorientation alimony is to allow the requesting spouse an opportunity to adjust to the changed financial circumstances accompanying a divorce. [25] Rehabilitative alimony is awarded when the recipient spouse intends to apply the alimony toward job training designed to lead to employment, in order to allow a recipient spouse who exits a marriage with few job skills and little earning capacity to secure a means of earned income. [26] Rehabilitative alimony is narrowly restricted to job training or other means directly related to entry or advancement within the work force, and the party seeking rehabilitative alimony must intend to use it for such purposes. [27] At the conclusion of trial on July 27, 2007, the superior court issued preliminary oral findings and rulings recognizing the need for Alena to complete further studies in English and engineering in order to pursue employment as an engineer in the U.S., and implying an intent to award rehabilitative support. [28] A few weeks after trial, on August 15, 2007, the court made oral findings explaining its award of $1,500 per month in spousal support and how it determined the duration of Timothy's obligation to pay it. The trial court's award was made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1183a and the INS Form I-864 affidavit. The court estimated that it would be about two years before Alena would be eligible for citizenship and calculated that $1,500 per month in spousal support was necessary to fulfill Timothy's obligation to support her at 125% of the federal poverty level. But the court rescinded this award when Timothy's counsel pointed out that it was based on a calculation for a household of five people, not one. The parties left the August 15, 2007 hearing anticipating a set of corrected findings; the corrected findings were not entered until late April 2008, and they did not rely on federal law. Instead, the corrected findings referenced factors from AS 25.24.160(a)(2), including the length of the parties' marriage, the lack of minor children, and the parties' relative financial positions. The court did not make findings about Alena's specific financial resources and needs, about what expenses Alena would incur if she attended university classes, or about how long she would have to attend classes to achieve her educational goals. As noted, trial ended in July of 2007 but the court did not enter findings until April of 2008. The court's written findings indicate its intention that Alena receive assistance through the end of the 2008 academic year, [29] but the record does not reveal whether Alena was enrolled in classes during the interval between July 2007 and April 2008. From this record we cannot determine the scope of Alena's rehabilitation plan, her needs during the rehabilitation period, or whether she progressed toward or completed her educational goals in the interval before the corrected findings were entered in April 2008. Because the court did not make findings concerning Alena's needs or indicate how its award of spousal support would meet those needs, we are unable to review the adequacy of the spousal support award under state law. We therefore remand this issue to the trial court for reconsideration and additional findings.
Alena argues that the superior court's findings concerning her ability to support herself in the event she returns to Belarus and her relative financial position before and after this marriage are clearly erroneous. She also argues that the court's written findings are contrary to its August 15, 2007 oral findings, and contrary to undisputed evidence concerning the state of the economy in Belarus. [30] We disagree. Alena testified that she still owns her apartment in Belarus and that the average pay in her former profession was $100 per month. The court orally found that although Alena has given up everything she has to come to this country, she could pick up and leave and go back to Belarus if she wants. The court recognized that it might be emotionally difficult for her to return to ... Belarus and it heard testimony that Alena's relatives now live in her apartment, but the court found, she has th[e] option [of returning to Belarus] and she can do what she wants to. The court made no other factual findings on this point. Alena offered only her own arguments as proof of the economic situation in Belarus and conceded at trial that, although difficult, she might be able to get a job paying the average salary of $100 per month if she returned there. This, coupled with the evidence that she now owns her apartment free of any mortgage debt, supports the trial court's conclusion that its award was sufficient to support Alena for a period of months in Belarus; it was not clear error. Alena does not provide a convincing argument that the trial court's April 2008 written findings conflict with its August 2007 oral findings.
Alena also argues that the trial court made procedural errors by issuing the written findings, including accepting unsolicited findings drafted by counsel, entering written findings which conflicted with the court's oral findings, and delaying too long before issuing the findings. Timothy counters that the written findings, which were drafted by his attorney, were submitted in accordance with Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 78(a) [31] and were adopted by the court in keeping with this court's existing case law on point. [32] Alena only raises these arguments in her reply brief. Because we deem waived any arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, we do not here reach the merits of these issues. [33]