Opinion ID: 3133193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withdrawals from joint accounts

Text: Terri Lin also argues that the superior court erred by considering her withdrawals of $4,500 and $4,000 from joint accounts in the context of the division of marital property. We do not detect any error related to the superior court’s treatment of these withdrawals in the division of marital property. “As a general rule, ‘property acquired after separation is properly excluded from the category of marital property.’ ”40 The $4,500 withdrawal followed the deposit of per diem travel allowances related to Terry’s post-separation training travel. Rather than force Terri Lin to repay Terry the full amount of the post-separation property she had withdrawn, the superior court counted the withdrawal as if it had been from marital 39 See Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(h). 40 Richter v. Richter, 330 P.3d 934, 939-40 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Ramsey v. Ramsey, 834 P.2d 807, 809 (Alaska 1992)). -16- 7052 property. This treatment favored Terri Lin, as it only reduced her award from the rest of the marital property by half of the withdrawn amount. The $4,000 withdrawal was from the account funded by rental income from the Ruppes’ Virginia property. Terri Lin used these funds to pay her initial attorney’s fees. The record does not clearly reveal whether the superior court credited her with already having received that amount of the marital estate. The court referenced the $4,000 withdrawal several times in its findings of fact, but Exhibit A, which documents the distribution of marital assets, does not contain an entry for this $4,000 withdrawal of rental income as it does for the $4,500 withdrawal of post-separation per diem pay. If the superior court did credit the $4,000 withdrawal against Terri Lin’s share of the marital estate, doing so was not error.41 Terri Lin requested 60% of the marital assets and received 58%. Under these facts, the superior court’s equitable division of property was not erroneous.