Opinion ID: 2587753
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alaska USA account

Text: Karl had an Alaska USA account, and the superior court found that two deposits had been made into it, $8,000 on May 19, 2001 and $6,000 on August 4, 2001. It concluded that because the parties agreed to value marital assets as of the date of the trial and because they continued to live in the marital home and made payments to preserve marital assets, the money then in the Alaska USA account was a marital asset. It also found that the time of the divorce decree, October 22, 2002, is the time when the income earned after the final separation became severable from marital property. It reached this decision because the financial transactions Karl conducted and the source of funds in several accounts made it difficult to identify the source of many of the funds. Karl argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to conclude that monies earned and deposited in Karl's account after Mada filed for divorce are marital property, because no evidence shows that the parties intended to function as a marital enterprise after that time. He contends that it is not enough that he and Mada continued to occupy the marital residence; without more this is not evidence of a marital enterprise. But, as explained above in Part III.D, the court did not err in finding that the parties lived as a marital unit until entry of the divorce decree. As Mada argues, the court determined that the two deposits were marital property, because it found that the parties continued to function as a marital unit. [29] The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in characterizing the deposits made before entry of the divorce decree as marital assets. [30]