Schaub v. Schaub

[FAMILY LAW]

In Schaub v. Schaub,[1] the supreme court held that laches do not bar the prospective division of retirement benefits pursuant to a marriage dissolution.[2] Theresa and “Hank” Schaub separated in 1986.[3] In 1992, Hank petitioned the court to dissolve their marriage, representing that he had made diligent efforts but had been unable to locate Theresa.[4] Subsequently, in 2010, Theresa filed a motion seeking a post-decree equitable distribution of their property.[5] On appeal, Hank raised the defense of laches because it had taken Theresa many years to petition the court.[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that laches did not bar the division of Hank’s future retirement benefits.[7] Here, Hank would not suffer unreasonable prejudice from this prospective division, while Theresa would certainly be prejudiced if denied her share.[8] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that laches do not bar the prospective division of retirement benefits to a marriage dissolution.[9]

 

 



[1] 305 P.3d 337 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 345.

[3] Id. at 338–39.

[4] Id. at 339.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 345.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

Schaub v. Schaub

[FAMILY LAW]

In Schaub v. Schaub,[1] the supreme court held that laches do not bar the prospective division of retirement benefits pursuant to a marriage dissolution.[2] Theresa and “Hank” Schaub separated in 1986.[3] In 1992, Hank petitioned the court to dissolve their marriage, representing that he had made diligent efforts but had been unable to locate Theresa.[4] Subsequently, in 2010, Theresa filed a motion seeking a post-decree equitable distribution of their property.[5] On appeal, Hank raised the defense of laches because it had taken Theresa many years to petition the court.[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that laches did not bar the division of Hank’s future retirement benefits.[7] Here, Hank would not suffer unreasonable prejudice from this prospective division, while Theresa would certainly be prejudiced if denied her share.[8] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that laches do not bar the prospective division of retirement benefits to a marriage dissolution.[9]

 

 



[1] 305 P.3d 337 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 345.

[3] Id. at 338–39.

[4] Id. at 339.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 345.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.