Beals v. Beals

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Beals v. Beals,[1] the supreme court held that absent evidence of intent to keep property separate it will be considered marital.[2] The Bealses married in 2000 and divorced in 2011.[3] Prior to the marriage Mark Beals owned a home at 534 Second Avenue.[4] The couple refinanced this home in order to convert $42,092 of equity to cash, which was used to purchase an adjacent lot.[5] Since this cash could be “easily tracked and separated from the marital assets,” the lower court decided Mark was entitled to $42,092 of lot’s $45,000 worth.[6] On appeal, Patricia argued that Mark had not presented evidence sufficient to characterize the adjacent lot as separate property and was thus subject to marital distribution.[7] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that except where marriage is short and no commingling of assets has occurred, property is presumed marital absent evidence of intent to the contrary.[8] Here, the adjacent lot was titled in both Mark’s and Patricia’s names.[9] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that absent evidence of an intent to keep property separate the property will be considered marital.[10]

 



[1] 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 460.

[3] Id. at 456.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 457.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 458.

[8] Id. at 460.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

Beals v. Beals

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Beals v. Beals,[1] the supreme court held that absent evidence of intent to keep property separate it will be considered marital.[2] The Bealses married in 2000 and divorced in 2011.[3] Prior to the marriage Mark Beals owned a home at 534 Second Avenue.[4] The couple refinanced this home in order to convert $42,092 of equity to cash, which was used to purchase an adjacent lot.[5] Since this cash could be “easily tracked and separated from the marital assets,” the lower court decided Mark was entitled to $42,092 of lot’s $45,000 worth.[6] On appeal, Patricia argued that Mark had not presented evidence sufficient to characterize the adjacent lot as separate property and was thus subject to marital distribution.[7] The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that except where marriage is short and no commingling of assets has occurred, property is presumed marital absent evidence of intent to the contrary.[8] Here, the adjacent lot was titled in both Mark’s and Patricia’s names.[9] Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that absent evidence of an intent to keep property separate the property will be considered marital.[10]

 



[1] 303 P.3d 453 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 460.

[3] Id. at 456.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 457.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 458.

[8] Id. at 460.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.