Court Opinion

ID: 9855564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:27:20.905374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:12.562527
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the court’s holding that state supplemental employee benefits are *593marital property subject to equitable division at the time of divorce. On the other hand, I am of the view that the superior court abused its discretion in failing to award Debbie Mann any attorney’s fees.
Here we are dealing with a marriage of ten years’ duration. Debbie Mann worked at various unskilled jobs until 1983, when Gregory Mann agreed that Debbie should work at home as a full-time homemaker and mother. At the time of trial the record discloses that Gregory’s monthly net pay as a correctional officer for the State of Alaska was between $2,200 and $2,400.1 The record further discloses that at least a portion of Gregory’s legal expenses ($1,500 according to Debbie) was covered by prepaid legal benefits he received from the State of Alaska.
Burrell v. Burrell, 537 P.2d 1, 7 (Alaska 1975), instructs that the parties’ relative economic situations and earning powers are relevant considerations in awarding attorney’s fees in a divorce action. In my opinion the record demonstrates that it is inequitable to require Debbie to bear her own costs given her lesser earning capacity and the stark disparity in the parties’ respective economic situations.2

. Gregory earned $38,560 in 1986.

. See also Rhodes v. Rhodes, 754 P.2d 1333, 1335-36 (Alaska 1988).