Opinion ID: 1119544
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Preference for property division over alimony

Text: Finally, Joseph argues that Nitaya could have paid the balance on her student loan and car payments out of the property division on the retirement account. [R]eorientation alimony is only appropriate when the property settlement will not adequately meet the parties' reasonable needs. Richmond, 779 P.2d at 1215, n. 6. Where property can provide support, alimony is neither just nor necessary. Hilliker v. Hilliker, 755 P.2d 1111, 1112 (Alaska 1988). One aspect of the superior court's alimony award may violate the preference for property division over alimony. The court ordered that the $5,500 in reorientation alimony for all obligations, past, present, or future be taken out of Joseph's retirement account. Given the preference for property division, the court might have awarded Nitaya a larger share of the retirement account, instead of designating this additional share of the Notkins' one item of divisible marital property as alimony. However, because this amount comes from the same source and is a one time only payment, regardless of how it is labelled, any error is harmless. As to the car payment and student loan components of the alimony award, these expenses could not have been paid for by increasing Nitaya's share of the retirement accounts. The court determined that the value of Joseph's retirement accounts was $32,128, and awarded Nitaya $16,014 of this amount in the property division, roughly half of the total. However, the court ordered Joseph to pay the $5,500 for obligations and Nitaya's $5,000 attorney's fee award out of his share of the property division. Furthermore, to help Nitaya cover the tax consequences and penalties that would result from the early withdrawal of the retirement monies, the court then decided to round up the total sum that Ms. Notkin shall withdraw from the [] account to $30,000. This leaves only $2,128 in Joseph's share of the account monies, far less than the $5,500 left to pay on Nitaya's student loan, not to mention the payments on the car. As to Joseph's assertion that Nitaya could have paid off her student loan and car payment obligations out of her $16,014 from the property settlement, the superior court considered the parties' earning capacities, educational backgrounds, employment skills, work experiences, and custodial responsibilities, acknowledged that reorientation alimony is only appropriate when the property settlement will not adequately meet a party's needs, and concluded that such alimony was appropriate. The court's conclusion was not an abuse of discretion. The amount of property that was available for division was small, Nitaya's earning capacity is low, and a separate award of reorientation alimony in addition to the property division seems to have been the only way to adequately ensure that she would be able to meet her reasonable needs.