SKYLAR J. BURNS-MARSHALL Appellant,
VICTORIA A. KROGMAN, Appellee.
from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, No. 3
AN-16-10010 CI, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Frank A.
Allison Mendel and John J. Sherman, Mendel Colbert &
Associates, Inc., Anchorage, for Appellant.
Douglas C. Perkins, Hartig Rhodes LLC, Anchorage, for
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and
divorcing couple disputed custody of their child and division
of their marital property. The wife alleged for the first
time during trial that the husband had engaged in a pattern
of domestic violence. The court found her testimony credible,
applied the statutory domestic violence presumption, and
awarded her primary physical and sole legal custody of the
child. The husband filed a motion to reopen the evidence
regarding domestic violence and substance abuse more than a
month after the court's oral decision. The court denied
his motion. The court divided the marital property 60/40 in
favor of the wife, awarded all of the real property to the
husband, and ordered him to make an equalization payment.
husband appeals the denial of his motion to reopen the
evidence and the property division. Because the husband
waived any argument that he should be allowed to present
additional evidence and the court did not abuse its
discretion in its property division, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Burns-Marshall and Victoria Krogman married in Anchorage in
June 2007. Their only child was born in 2011. They owned a
condominium in Anchorage and a vacant lot in Homer. They
separated in October 2016 and shared custody of the child.
worked seasonally as a pipe layer and found other temporary
employment or collected unemployment compensation during the
winter. Krogman worked at various jobs during the marriage.
After her separation from Burns-Marshall, Krogman moved to
Arizona. At the time of trial she was enrolled in a nursing
program at an Arizona university.
filed for divorce in November 2016 and sought j oint legal
and shared physical custody of their child. In her answer
Krogman denied that Burns-Marshall was fit to have joint
legal and shared physical custody and asked for sole custody,
with reasonable visitation for Burns-Marshall.
parties filed a number of pretrial motions. In her pleadings
and motions Krogman made seemingly inconsistent statements
about the trial and her marriage with Burns-Marshall. In a
November motion she referred to Burns-Marshall's
"harsh and controlling behavior throughout the
marriage," and alleged that Burns-Marshall had
previously been convicted of minor consuming alcohol and that
he "still drinks to excess." But in January 2017
Krogman opposed Burns-Marshall's motion for the
appointment of a child custody investigator because their
child was too young for an interview to be helpful and
because there were no "bad facts" or anything
"so unusual or troubling about this case" that
would require a child custody investigation. In a February
motion to set a trial date Krogman characterized the divorce
as "a routine relocation custody case... and a simple
property case"; she stated both issues would be
"very straightforward and ... easy to prepare for and
address at trial."
superior court scheduled a 3-day trial in April and ordered
that discovery be completed 14 days before the start of the
trial. Burns-Marshall conducted no discovery; he did not
depose Krogman or send her interrogatories.
before trial both parties filed trial briefs. Burns-Marshall
requested primary physical custody and shared legal custody.
Krogman argued that she should have sole legal and exclusive
physical custody, and alleged that Burns-Marshall did not
care for the child's basic needs.