Opinion ID: 2570151
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: It Was Error To Deduct the $10,000 Loan from Taggart's Portion of the TSP Without a More Detailed Explanation.

Text: In mid-2005 the superior court ordered Taggart to borrow $10,000 from his TSP account so he could continue to make mortgage payments on the marital home occupied by Sabra and the children. Although the superior court found the marital portion of the TSP account was worth about $194,000 in July 2005, in its 2006 decision the court attributed the entire $10,000 TSP loan to Taggart, rather than dividing it between the parties. Taggart argues that it was error to treat the loan as his, and that it should have been classified as a marital loan to be divided between the parties. The May 31, 2006 findings of fact and conclusions of law characterized all mortgage payments, including those made from the TSP loan, as payments made in lieu of child or spousal support. [26] Thus, the superior court found: After separation, Taggart agreed (and his agreement subsequently was made into an order) to pay the mortgage on the marital home in lieu of child support. He stopped paying the mortgage on occasions, leaving Sabra in financial difficulties, and Taggart eventually was ordered to take a loan of $10,000 from the TSP to continue to pay mortgage payments in the interim, and to pay for a second appraisal.... The $10,000 loan amount from the TSP shall be counted against Taggart's 33% share of the TSP, because he agreed and was ordered to pay the mortgage from his post-separation income. The court then added that to the extent the mortgage payments exceeded Taggart's child support obligation, it was fair and equitable to deem the excess interim spousal support. Taggart argues that although he did originally agree to continue to make the mortgage payment on the marital residence in lieu of child support at the onset of this litigation, by the time he took out the TSP loan, he no longer wished to pay the mortgage in lieu of child support. Instead, beginning in mid-2005 Taggart filed repeated motions asking the court to issue a written decision and to award the home (and the responsibility for making the mortgage payments) to Sabra. Taggart argues that because the court delayed issuing its decision, [27] and because the TSP loan was utilized to preserve the marital estate, it should have been split between the parties. Taggart is correct in arguing that the superior court must consider payments made to maintain marital property from post-separation income when dividing marital property, [28] even though we have recognized that [w]e have not ... held that the spouse who makes such payments must necessarily be given credit for them in the final property division. [29] Here it appears Taggart may be correct in arguing that the court entered a separate interim $500 per month child-support order at about the same time the court ordered him to take out the TSP loan to make the mortgage payments. This would seem to be inconsistent with treating the mortgage payments as Taggart's own obligation on the theory they were in lieu of his child support payments. Also, because most of Taggart's TSP account was marital, in effect the loan (although taken out by Taggart) used marital assets to preserve another marital asset (the parties' home) before trial. It therefore would have been appropriate to presume that the loan was marital. Nonetheless, the findings of fact and conclusions of law do not discuss whether the court considered these payments when it divided the property. We remand for more detailed findings explaining why the TSP loan should not be treated as a marital debt to be divided equitably between the parties, rather than counted only against Taggart's share of the TSP.