Opinion ID: 2633636
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Award of the Anchorage House

Text: At trial, Bill sought to be awarded the Anchorage home which belonged to his father and was where he was born and raised. The home contains many Odom family heirlooms. [18] To help Carey find a new home, Bill had proposed that she be given six months to locate another home (financed in part by Bill). But the superior court awarded the home and its contents to Carey because it had awarded Carey primary physical custody of the children. Because that award was not an abuse of discretion, we affirm. Bill attacks the superior court's reasoning on several grounds. First, he addresses the link that the superior court made between the award of custody and the award of the Anchorage home. Bill argues that if the award of the home was based on the custody decision, then Carey should have been required to sell the house to Bill once the children left home. Second, Bill argues that custody decisions by themselves should not determine property division decisions. But both of these arguments have little merit. Alaska Statute 25.24.160(a)(4)(F) directs the superior court to consider the desirability of awarding the family home, or the right to live in it for a reasonable period of time, to the party who has primary physical custody of [the] children. It is well within the broad discretion of the superior court to determine how a marital asset should be allocated at trial. [19] The superior court noted that the children had lived in the Anchorage home their entire lives. And the trial court recognized Bill's attachment to the home by awarding him a right of first refusal to purchase it should Carey predecease him, or should she choose to sell it during her lifetime. Because it was well within the superior court's discretion to award the family home to Carey, we affirm on this issue.