Opinion ID: 1279751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Are the Trial Court's Property Division and Valuation Clearly Unjust?

Text: The trial court ordered Husband to dissolve the Gabaig Family Trust and awarded Wife a one-third interest in the value of all his real and personal property. [14] The property was to be valued by a professional trustee on the date of separation or divorce, whichever was higher. However, because Husband disobeyed the court's order to dissolve the trust, the property was valued at the highest figure supported by the testimony. Husband argues this is clearly unjust. The equitable division of property is a three-step process: the court (1) determines what property is available for distribution, (2) values the property and (3) finds the most equitable allocation. Wanberg v. Wanberg, 664 P.2d 568, 570 (Alaska 1983). We will reverse a property distribution only if the trial court abused its discretion; the appellant must show it is clearly unjust. Hinchey v. Hinchey, 625 P.2d 297, 304 (Alaska 1981), rev'd on other grounds Dowling v. Dowling, 679 P.2d 480 (Alaska 1984). Property available for distribution includes all property acquired during marriage, whether title is joint or separate. AS 25.24.160(6). [15] The trial court's valuation will not be set aside unless it is clearly erroneous. Courtney v. Courtney, 542 P.2d 164, 168 (Alaska 1975). We have refused to set aside a valuation supported by expert testimony, even though it was contradicted by another expert. Hunt v. Hunt, 698 P.2d 1168, 1170-71 (Alaska 1985). The trial court does not abuse its discretion when it values the property on a reasonable date. Id. at 1172; Bussell v. Bussell, 623 P.2d 1221, 1222-23 (Alaska 1981). The trial court should presume an equal division of property is the most equitable, then apply the factors discussed in Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546 (Alaska 1962). [16] The court need not make findings as to each Merrill factor, but its findings must provide an adequate basis for the conclusion reached. Brooks v. Brooks, 677 P.2d 1230, 1233 (Alaska 1984); Merrill 368 P.2d at 548 n. 10. Applying this analysis to the case at bar, the trial court first specified property available for distribution; it was all acquired after the parties were married. [17] Much of the property consisted of trust assets formerly held separately by Husband, but AS 25.24.160(6) expressly allows division of property held separately. The trial court valued the Anchorage home at $207,000; this is not disputed. Husband presented appraisals of his California assets. The trial court found that Wife was unable to submit her own appraisals because Husband actively resisted discovery attempts and refused to pay interim attorney's fees. The court accordingly concluded that it was impossible to value the California (trust) property in the decree and ordered the future trustee to procure an appraisal. However, when Husband did not comply with the court's order to dissolve the trust, the trust property was valued at a total of $2,250,000, the highest value indicated in the testimony. Notwithstanding its inability to value the trust property, the trial court made an equitable allocation, awarding Wife one-third the value of the marital assets. The court gave more than half the property to Husband primarily because he inherited it. [18] Based on its evaluation of the Merrill factors, the trial court's property division is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm the property division and valuation.