Opinion ID: 2585299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court's Authority to Enter the Separation Decree

Text: Gail argues as a preliminary matter that the superior court lacked authority to enter the separation decree in 1991 because actions for legal separation do not exist in Alaska. After finding inferential authority recognizing the validity of separation agreements, the superior court concluded that it possessed jurisdiction when it granted the decree in 1991. Although there is no statute that directly authorizes courts to enter separation decrees, the superior court reasoned that the legislature's references to legal separation in statutes pertaining to child custody and support indicate that individuals may bring such actions. The superior court noted that although some statutes refer to legal separation, these provisions do not specifically authorize courts to grant legal separations. [6] Danny, on the other hand, maintains that because actions for separate maintenance exist at common law, the superior court possessed authority to enter the separation decree here. We need not decide in this case whether courts in Alaska may enter decrees of legal separation. Instead, we affirm the superior court's decision because we conclude that the decree, even if authorized, was not a final order and that the Glasens' reconciliation dissolved the decree.