Opinion ID: 2204996
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wasilla Property

Text: In the summer of 2006, James purchased a home and several residential lots on Lake Lucille in Wasilla. James used income from KCP to make a down payment on the home and to purchase two adjoining lots. Erlinda co-signed on the note for the purchase of the house, but not on the adjacent lots. She testified that she signed for the house because [James] couldn't buy the Lake Lucille house without my signature. . . . I agreed to sign so he could have a place to heal. James testified that the house and lots were marital property because he had hoped at the time of purchase that he and Erlinda would reconcile and live together in a new home built on one of the lots. [5] While living on the Lake Lucille property prior to and during trial, James spent nearly $70,000 on mortgage payments and insurance for the Lake Lucille home. He also used approximately $67,000 to renovate it and improve the adjoining lots. These improvements were made without consulting Erlinda and using funds over which she had no control, but James characterized them as marital expenses. In his closing argument, James again characterized the Lake Lucille home and adjacent lots as marital property, but he asked that the court award them to him so he could continue living there. The trial court determined that the house and adjacent lots were James's separate property. The court explained: Although Ms. Partridge's name is on the house, she's not on the adjoining lots. And it's clear to me from the testimony that the Wasilla home was not intended to be a joint investment by the parties. Mr. Partridge has made a number of improvement[s] on the property where he seeks to reside, but those were not improvements that were made as joint decision[s], to cut down trees and put in doors and other things. Those were decisions that he made for property that he alone has resided in. So I don't see that the Wasilla property and adjacent lots should be considered to be a marital estate marital assets. And that's consistent with the June '06 separation date. The trial court found there has been depletion of the marital estate by Mr. Partridge in the purchase of the Wasilla home and the considerable funds that he spent there. The court recaptured those funds by treating them as a prior cash distribution to James in its accounting.