Court Opinion

ID: 9663460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:39:42.710561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:50.449875
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring in part, concurring in result in part).
I concur in the majority opinion with respect to affirming the increase in the child support; however, I can only concur in the result on the issue of termination of the alimony.
With respect to the issue of termination of the alimony, I would simply reject out-of-hand Janey’s reliance on the exception in the case of Voyles v. Voyles, 644 P.2d 847 (Alaska 1982). As the majority has correctly noted, this court, by adoption of the Marquardt * rule, has rejected the Voyles rule of automatic termination. Having rejected the predicate, how then can an exception be relied upon by Janey? Such reliance should fail out-of-hand.
I concur in the result, however, because I believe that the trial judge, in arriving at his decision on termination, correctly relied on our Marquardt decision. In his findings of fact, the trial judge (who had also entered the divorce decree) dispensed with Janey’s argument for implied continuation beyond remarriage by stating:
[T]he Court intended that the remarriage of the Plaintiff would be only one factor in determining whether the alimony would terminate prior to the end of seven years and intended that the alimony would continue unless Defendant could prove a change of circumstances to justify termination of the alimony prior to the end of seven years.
He then specifically found:
Plaintiff has shown no extraordinary circumstances so as to justify the continuation of alimony following her remarriage.
A review of the record supports that finding. Janey seeks continuation of alimony because she married a man who apparently cannot support her in the manner to which she is accustomed. The trial court granted some increase in child support to protect the children but declined to rescue Janey from her own decision. In this case, I agree with him.

 Marquardt v. Marquardt By Rempfer, 396 N.W. 2d 753 (S.D.1986).