Appeal
from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, No.
3AN-17-05581 CI Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Herman G.
Walker, Jr., Judge.
Justin
R. Eschbacher, Law Offices of G. R. Eschbacher, Anchorage,
for Appellant.
Brian
H. Starr, Anchorage, for Appellee.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and
Carney, Justices.
OPINION
CARNEY, JUSTICE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
A wife
appeals two issues following her divorce. She argues that the
superior court erred when it classified a portion of her
student loan debt as non-marital. She also argues that the
court improperly calculated the parties' income for child
support purposes. Because the superior court applied the
wrong legal standards to determine whether the student loan
debt was marital and to calculate the parties' incomes
for child support purposes, we vacate the superior
court's final property distribution and child support
orders and remand for the court to conduct the proper legal
analysis.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A.
Facts
Adam
Perry and Kyoko Perry married in November 2005 and have two
minor children. For the latter part of their marriage, Kyoko
handled the couple's finances.
Kyoko
continued her education while married, obtaining a
bachelor's degree and a master's degree and incurring
approximately $ 84, 000 in debt. The superior court found
that she incurred $30, 500 of the debt for the bachelor's
degree and the remaining $53, 500 for her master's
degree. Adam was aware that Kyoko was attending school and
taking out loans to pay for it; it is less clear whether he
knew the type of degree or the amount of loans. Kyoko
testified that she obtained a master's degree so she
could defer her loan payments while Adam was temporarily
unemployed. She stated that she feared they could not afford
the loan payments while Adam was out of work. Adam decided to
leave his job and was temporarily unemployed for a period of
34 days in early 2015, around the same time that Kyoko's
student loan payments began.
Adam
filed for divorce in March 2017. He and Kyoko continued to
live together in the marital home until June 2017, when Adam
moved to his father's home. He kept possessions at the
marital home for another month and continued to "com[e]
and go[] as he pleased" until late August. The children
were primarily in Kyoko's physical custody between June
and August.
B.
Proceedings
In July
2017 Adam moved for interim child support. In the child
support affidavit accompanying his motion, he listed his
gross income as $41, 884 and Kyoko's as $86, 543. He
based his calculation on the parties' 2016 W-2s and
Permanent Fund Dividends. Kyoko opposed the motion, but the
superior court took no action before the trial.
Trial
was held in September. At trial Adam testified that his
salary was $52, 000 a year. Kyoko testified that she made
roughly $4, 400 per month and her trial brief listed her
salary as $76, 000, not including bonuses.
The
court issued its initial property division order on January
24, 2018. In it the superior court found that Adam earned
approximately $51, 000 per year and Kyoko approximately $76,
000 per year. The court acknowledged that Adam was aware that
Kyoko was in school and incurring debt. The court classified
the entire $84, 000 student loan debt as a marital debt, but
declared Adam responsible only "for half of the $30, 500
debt for the first degree." The court appears to have
divided the student loan debt unequally because Kyoko
"dissipated marital assets" by pursuing her
master's degree, apparently not believing she needed to
do so when Adam was unemployed for only 34
days.[1] Finally, the court concluded that there
was "no reason to deviate from the 50/50
presumption" to divide the marital estate. The court
noted, however, that because it had designated the whole
student loan debt as marital, there would be "an impact
on the marital distribution." To counteract this impact,
it would grant Adam "more of the cash assets" and
divide the property equally.
The
next day the superior court issued an interim child support
order, using the draft order and income amounts submitted
with Adam's earlier motion - $41, 884 for Adam and $86,
543 for Kyoko. Instead of using the income amounts in the
property division order issued a day earlier, the superior
court relied upon the amounts in the parties' 2016 W-2s,
which were roughly $10, 000 less for Adam and roughly $10,
000 more for Kyoko.
Both
parties then filed motions to reconsider. Adam's motion
sought reconsideration of the property division based on the
court's inconsistent treatment of the student loan debt,
stating that the court contradicted itself by declaring the
whole debt as marital but only treating $30, 500 as marital.
Kyoko also objected to the court's treatment of the
student loan debt and argued in addition that it had used
incorrect income figures to calculate child support in the
interim order. She argued that the court should have used the
amounts in its property division order, which were based upon
more current evidence from trial. She attached a proposed
child support order to her motion, using the income figures
in the property division order, and estimating adjusted
incomes of $43, 223.60 for Adam and $48, 474.96 for
Kyoko.[2]
The
superior court held a status hearing on the motions to
reconsider in February 2018. During the hearing the court
advised the parties of its intent to rely on the child
support calculations in Kyoko's motion to reconsider
unless Adam objected. Adam conceded during the hearing that
...