Court Opinion

ID: 9534346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:38:47.759385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:20.047749
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON REHEARING
Robert Musser has petitioned the court for rehearing of its Opinion in this case. Robert first argues that the court ignored the “separate contract for debt” allegedly entered into between the parties. The “separate contract for debt” Robert refers to is the one created by the dissolution agreement, under which Janet agreed to quitclaim her interest in the house in exchange for a $15,000 note. The Opinion explains why this agreement is unenforceable. See also Pavek v. Curran, 754 P.2d 1125, 1126 (Alaska 1988) (“When ruling on a motion to enter judgment upon an alleged settlement agreement the superior court has discretion to deny the motion if the court determines that material issues of fact exist as to ... a material term of the settlement.”). The “contract” was never, nor is it now, in “full force,” as Robert alleges. Garnishment was had on the final judgment in the divorce action, not on the “note” Robert speaks of. That garnishment was entirely proper.
*1244Regarding Robert’s claim that the court erred in stating Janet gave him $20,600, this statement was based on the superior court’s finding of fact that Janet gave Robert $20,-600. (Tr. 65) This finding is not clearly erroneous.
The opinion does not contradict or “overlook” Palmer v. Palmer, MOJ 0802 (Alaska December 15, 1995). Palmer refers to Kerslake v. Kerslake, 609 P.2d 559, 560 n.1 (Alaska 1980), wherein the court stated “the separation agreement should be controlling in the absence of fraud, duress, concealment of assets or other facts showing the agreement was not made voluntarily and with full understanding.” The separation agreement in Palmer was controlling because there was no evidence of a lack of understanding between the represented parties. See Palmer, MOJ at 2. The situation is different here.
On due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. Entered by direction of the Court at Anchorage, Alaska, on April 18, 1996.