Aubert v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court No. S-17573 |
| Citation | 483 P.3d 179 |
| Parties | Laura AUBERT, Personal Representative of the Estate of David L. Aubert, Appellant, v. Debra J. WILSON, f/k/a Debra J. Aubert, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
Kenneth J. Goldman, Law Offices of Kenneth J. Goldman, P.C., Palmer, for Appellant.
Debra J. Wilson, pro se, Nevada, Missouri, Appellee.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Carney, and Borghesan, Justices.
This appeal concerns the equitable division of property in divorce. After filing for divorce from her husband, the wife moved to bifurcate proceedings so the parties could be immediately divorced, with their property to be divided later after trial. The superior court granted the motion and issued the divorce decree in the wife's favor. Shortly after the divorce decree, but before the property division trial, the husband died and his estate was substituted as a party. After trial, the superior court divided the marital property 90% to 10% in favor of the wife.
The husband's estate appeals, arguing that the court improperly classified, valued, and allocated various property. In particular, the estate challenges the unequal allocation of the marital property. We hold that, as a general matter, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a disproportionate share of the marital property to the wife in light of her greater needs. But because the superior court erred in classifying several items, we reverse or vacate some of its rulings and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Debra Wilson and David Aubert married in September 2007. They separated ten years later, in June 2017. They had no children together, but each has adult children from prior marriages. Debra filed for divorce in July 2017. At Debra's request, the court bifurcated the divorce from the property division. In July 2018 the court entered a decree of divorce and ordered that property and debt distribution would be determined at a later trial. A month after the divorce decree — but several months before the property division trial — David died. The personal representative of his estate, his daughter Laura Aubert, substituted as a party.
After a two-day marital property division trial in February 2019, the superior court issued its judgment and findings of fact and conclusions of law.1 Observing that David had died after divorce but before trial, the court found, based on these "factual circumstances" and "the parties’ relative earning capabilities [and] future economic need," that an "unequal distribution is equitable." The court also found that David's children "attempted to hide and sell marital assets." The court attached a property distribution spreadsheet indicating the findings for each item of property and an account of the overall allocation.
The rulings challenged on appeal pertain to the following subjects: real property in Missouri; a pleasure boat; two vehicles; a credit card account; mechanic's tools; the parties’ marital home in Wasilla; and the overall allocation of the marital property.
The estate challenges the superior court's classification of real property in Missouri and its associated debt. Debra's father testified that he gave her the Missouri property as a pre-inheritance gift. Debra entered the quitclaim deed into evidence, and the deed is solely in her name. The parties agreed that $3,000 in marital funds had been used to pay down a loan on the property. The court classified the property as Debra's separate property but classified the debt on the property as marital.
The estate challenges the superior court's classification of a Bayliner boat. David had received the boat as part of the property settlement in a previous divorce. Debra testified that they used the boat "as a family." She indicated that she and David had purchased a new top for the boat that cost $1,200. She also stated that the family "fished every summer up until ... 2016." David's daughter Carolynn testified that the boat had not been used since 2016 due to her father's declining health and the need for repairs. The court classified the boat as "[p]remarital property transmuted to marital."
The estate challenges the superior court's classification of two vehicles — a 2007 GMC Sierra truck and a 2008 Chevy Impala sedan. David's initial property and debt worksheet listed the truck as marital property. At trial David's daughter Carolynn testified that after Debra left the home, David could no longer afford the truck payments, so Carolynn loaned him $6,150 to pay off the loan. This transaction occurred just four days after Debra and David separated. Carolynn acknowledged that "[Debra's] name and [David's] name were both on the truck" but testified that she replaced Debra's name on the title with her own name. David sold the Chevy Impala to Carolynn for $2,800 after the separation but before the divorce. The Kelley Blue Book value was $3,079. Debra testified that she believed these actions constituted waste, as Carolynn obtained the vehicles from her father for below market values and thereafter removed Debra's name from the title. The court found that the vehicles were marital property and awarded both to Debra.
The estate challenges the superior court's classification of debt on the couple's joint credit card. The total balance on the account at the time of trial was $4,246. Prior to trial, Debra requested that the total debt go to David because the money was spent on his daughter Carolynn's dog. The estate responded that only $1,800 was for the dog and that Carolynn had gifted David and Debra the dog before the dog got sick.
At trial Carolynn testified that she gave the dog to David and Debra. Carolynn also testified that when she put the payment on the card, the veterinarian called Debra — not David — to confirm whether Carolynn was authorized to use that credit card and sign the bill. The court classified $2,426 of the total account balance as marital debt, indicating that the remaining amount (around $1,800) was David's separate debt.
The estate challenges the superior court's valuation of mechanic's tools. Evidence was presented addressing the tools’ ownership and value. A property division agreement from David's previous divorce stated that he was awarded "[a]ll of his mechanical tools," indicating that some of his tools were premarital assets. David and Debra's federal tax returns, which were introduced as exhibits, provide information on the amount they spent on tools in various years — $13,905 in 2008, $20,113 in 2009, $3,100 in 2010, and $2,400 in 2012. David executed a will in 2017 in which he valued the tools "at approximately [$]100,000.00."
A number of witnesses testified to the value of the tools. An appraiser hired by the estate who had valued the tools indicated that he believed they were worth between $13,340 and $14,340. Debra questioned Laura and Carolynn about whether they had hidden any tools from the appraiser, but they denied doing so.
Carolynn testified that David would brag about the tools being worth $100,000, but she said he sometimes exaggerated. Debra's son, a mechanic who worked with David, testified that he thought the tools were worth $90,000 to $100,000. One of Debra's co-workers, who had David fix his car, testified that David "bought the best [tools] he could get" and that the tools were "worth $100,000 to [David]." David's friend of 20 years, who "hauled [David's] tools for him," testified that "[David] had a lot of tools," many acquired after his marriage to Debra. He stated that "a lot of the tools are valuable, but they depreciate ... as the years go by." The court, relying on testimony about the high value of the tools, valued the tools at $70,000.
The estate challenges the superior court's classification of the equity in and debt on the couple's home in Wasilla. The parties agreed the property was a marital asset and the associated debt was marital debt. The court stated that the Wasilla "[h]ome [was] to be sold [and] [e]xcess profits split evenly." It valued the home at $260,000 and specified that each party would receive $130,000. The court allocated the entire value of the debt on the Wasilla property — $169,457 — to the estate.
The estate challenges the superior court's unequal division of the marital property in favor of Debra. The court's form order does not specify the respective percentage for each party, but the attached spreadsheet indicates the overall allocation. The court allocated specific items of property and debt to the parties so that 89% of the net value went to Debra. The court then ordered the estate to make an equalization payment to Debra so that the final division would be 90% in Debra's favor.
The estate filed a motion for reconsideration, raising many of the arguments it now raises before us on appeal. In particular, the estate argued that the superior court had erred in its treatment of the marital home and should have either (1) calculated the equity in the home and split it evenly between the parties or (2) awarded both the home and the mortgage to the estate. In response, the court corrected "scrivener's errors on the property distribution table" but did not make the other changes requested by the estate. With respect to the marital home, the court stated that "[t]he parties agreed that [the estate] would assume the mortgage" and that it had merely "adopted the parties’ agreements before making the contested property valuation and distribution determinations." The court declined to address any of the estate's other arguments.
The estate appeals.
"Alaska follows the law of equitable distribution, which is a set of rules for dividing property upon divorce."2...
To continue reading
Request your trial