Opinion ID: 1118335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the court err in failing to take into account the interim support payments?

Text: Billie submits that the purpose of the court's order awarding Virginia $2,900 per month in interim support was to redistribute the parties' property. He claims that the $2,900 payments greatly exceeded Virginia's needs. He also argues that in cases where the amount of interim support awarded is as large as in this case, [2] the trial court must take the interim support payments into account when making a division of marital property. As Virginia points out, Billie's argument is inconsistent with our holding in Lewis concerning the role of interim support in the allocation and distribution of marital property. Lewis, 785 P.2d at 552-54. Citing cases from other states, we wrote that [i]n other jurisdictions the distinction between alimony and the distribution of marital property is very clear: `[A]limony is in no way a property settlement, but is the provision made for the support of the wife.' [citations omitted] We agree with this approach and consider it to be consistent with our earlier decisions in this area. Id. at 553-54. We reversed the superior court's decision to treat the interim support as a distribution of marital property, stating that the court provided no explanation for treating the interim support as a distribution of marital property. Id. at 554. Because Alaska law distinguishes between interim support payments and marital property, Billie's argument that the court should have considered these payments when distributing the marital property is rejected. [3]