On Aug. 31, the Supreme Court of Alaska gave on opinion on a property dispute between two Wrangell residents, DeWayne Tomal and Jeannette Anderson. The opinion came down after a trial in superior court between the two Wrangellites, after their domestic partnership came to an end and the question of how to divide their property came to trial. The case is an interesting one, the opinion reads, because Tomal and Anderson both reportedly continued to live together for some time after their relationship had come to an end.
“Alaska has long recognized unique legal standards for property disputes between two people ending a domestic partnership,” the opinion reads. “Our case law has treated the end of a domestic partnership as coextensive with both the end of a marriage-like relationship and the end of the partners’ cohabitation, as has generally been the case in the appeals we have decided. But this appeal presents the novel factual circumstance of a couple who continued living together after their marriage-like relationship ended. We must therefore clarify several aspects of our domestic partnership case law to decide this appeal.”
Tomal and Anderson began living together in Wrangell 1998, according to the opinion. Tomal purchased beachfront property off of Zimovia Highway and the two worked to make it into their permanent home. Shortly thereafter, however, there were financial troubles and the relationship fell apart. In 2012, Anderson told Tomal that she would no longer sleep in the same house as him. However, though Tomal and Anderson slept in separate rooms, did their own chores, and prepared their own meals, they continued to live in the same home, according to the report.
In 2015 Anderson obtained legal counsel and proposed the Zimovia property be partitioned, but Tomal did not agree to the idea. Tomal filed a lawsuit against Anderson in 2016, claiming she was liable for property expenses he had been paying for as well as for unauthorized expenditures she had made with his earnings. Anderson denied these claims and filed a countersuit for a domestic partnership property division.
The superior court held a three-day bench trial in February and March of 2017. In April, a written decision was given to divide the property. Tomal failed to prove his misappropriation claims and that he and Anderson were in a domestic partnership, requiring equal division of property. The partnership ended in 2012 when Anderson said she would no longer sleep in the same room as him, the court decided. The court also resolved several valuation disputes and included $50,000 of Tomal’s pension as partnership property.
Tomal was awarded the Zimovia property at a value of $275,000 and was ordered to pay Anderson an equalization payment of a little less than $100,000. The court decided against crediting Tomal for post-separation property expense payments as both parties continued to contribute to the household in roughly equal amounts.
The case was complicated, however, by Tomal seeking to get the court to reconsider the denial of the post-separation expenses. He also sought prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs. Anderson also sought prevailing party fees and costs, but she also sought to have the court give her the Zimovia property. She also wanted to keep Tomal from entering the property, citing a fear of domestic violence. The court declined to give Tomal prevailing party attorney’s fees. Instead, Anderson was awarded over $500 in litigation costs and nothing in attorney’s fees. After this, both parties appealed to the state supreme court.
In the opinion, the Alaska Supreme Court wrote that it determined four things about the case. One, the trial court did not “clearly err” by finding the relationship between Tomal and Anderson at an end in 2012.
“By early 2012 the parties had separate finances and filed separate tax returns; they had not filed a joint tax return at least since 2005,” the opinion read.
Secondly, the court found that it was a mistake to classify certain property as partnership property, such as a portion of Tomal’s pension. In the trial Tomal argued that there was no evidence that the parties intended to share his pension, and the court was wrong to require he pay a portion of it to Anderson. Anderson, meanwhile, argued that the trial court was wrong to classify her truck as shared property, but Tomal’s boat as separate. The Supreme Court decided that it was, indeed, an error to count the pension as shared property. The court also determined that Anderson’s truck was private, and not shared property. However, the court also decided that the boat in question was correctly assigned as separate property as Tomal purchased it after the relationship came to an end with personal funds.
Third, the court found a clear error in the valuation of a certain piece of property. An excavator was valued by the trial court at $1,000. According to Anderson, this was a mistake as Tomal had testified a neighbor had offered to purchase it once for $6,000. The Supreme Court agreed with Anderson that this was a mistake.
Finally, the Supreme Court determined that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by requiring an equalization payment.” Tomal argued that the equalization payment effectively forced him to cash out of his pension to pay Anderson. However, the court rejected this argument, saying that Tomal was not required to use his pension to pay Anderson, he could find other sources of funds.
“Except as otherwise noted, we affirm the trial court’s rulings,” The opinion read. “We remand for the trial court to recalculate the equalization payment in light of our opinion.”
Reader Comments(0)