Opinion ID: 1162581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: are the monthly payments imposed on the husband unreasonable?

Text: The husband argues that under the decree his annual recurrent payments include: Note to wife $ 73,495 Real property note 14,400 Education for children 30,000 Bellingham mortgage and taxes (wife's home) 24,000 ________ TOTAL $141,895 He contrasts this with his annual salary of $120,000 from Quality Asphalt. Here, as in Brooks v. Brooks, 677 P.2d 1230, 1235 (Alaska 1984), we find the imposition of these payments to be problematic in view of the husband's projected income. See also Groff v. Groff, 408 P.2d 998, 1001 (Alaska 1965) (disapproving a decree requiring appellant to pay $1,025 when his net monthly income was $1,012); cf. Allen v. Allen, 554 P.2d 393 (Alaska 1976) (appellant could lessen the burden of high payments imposed by a decree by reorganizing financially, presumably without undue hardship). Since this case must be remanded to revalue the parties' interest in Quality Asphalt, and to make such adjustments as the court finds warranted, it should suffice to direct the court to address this problem. Either appropriate adjustments should be made, or findings should be entered to the effect that alternative means are available to the husband to meet his obligations.