Opinion ID: 1201835
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the superior court properly applied the ten year statute of limitations.

Text: Warren argues that the superior court should have applied the six year statute of limitations to Dorothy's action. [1] His theory is that the support provision in the Agreement was a debt, not alimony, and therefore subject to the statute of limitations controlling contracts. See AS 09.10.050. Warren argues that the hearing transcript shows conclusively that the $100,000 agreement, contained in item 21, was an offset in lieu of a half interest in the Alaska Gulf. Regardless of whether the payments are characterized as alimony or installment payments of property, the trial court correctly applied the ten year statute of limitations. Alaska Statute 09.10.040 governs actions on decrees: No person may bring an action upon a judgment or decree of a court ... of a state or territory within the United States ... unless commenced within 10 years. Since Warren and Dorothy's Agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree, Dorothy's action is based on the decree, not the Agreement. Stone v. Stone, 647 P.2d 582, 584 (Alaska 1982) (A property settlement incorporated into a divorce decree is merged into the decree, so that the rights of the parties derive from the decree, not the agreement.). Therefore, the ten year statute of limitations should apply to her action. Cf. Cedergreen v. Cedergreen, 811 P.2d 784, 786 (Alaska 1991) (ten year statute of limitations applied to an action based on a child custody agreement incorporated into a divorce decree).