Stanhope v. Stanhope

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Stanhope v. Stanhope,[1] the supreme court held that in an equitable division of marital assets proceeding, it is reasonable to award a contested marital residence to the party with the ability to afford for the property’s upkeep and mortgage.[2] In 2010, Kenneth divorced his wife, Maryna.[3] At the time of the divorce, Kenneth was disabled and considered unable to hold a job, while Maryna worked as a janitor.[4] During proceedings to equally divide the marital property, the superior court found that Maryna, due to her job, was in a better position to pay the home’s mortgage and upkeep, awarding her the marital residence.[5] On appeal, Kenneth argued that the lower court erred by awarding Maryna the residence because he was dependent on the house.[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the lower court did not abuse its discretion weighing the different factors in the case, ultimately awarding the home to the person who could afford to maintain the residence.[7] Kenneth’s poor health, inability to work and destruction of a number of marital assets were properly weighed against Maryna’s recent immigration, modest earning capacity as a janitor and lack of health problems.[8] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that in an equitable division of marital assets proceeding, it is reasonable to award the contested marital residence to the party with the ability to afford for the property’s upkeep and mortgage.[9]

 



[1] 306 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 1287.

[3] Id. at 1285.

[4] Id. at 1286–89.

[5] Id. at 1286.

[6] Id. at 1289.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 1287.

Stanhope v. Stanhope

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Stanhope v. Stanhope,[1] the supreme court held that in an equitable division of marital assets proceeding, it is reasonable to award a contested marital residence to the party with the ability to afford for the property’s upkeep and mortgage.[2] In 2010, Kenneth divorced his wife, Maryna.[3] At the time of the divorce, Kenneth was disabled and considered unable to hold a job, while Maryna worked as a janitor.[4] During proceedings to equally divide the marital property, the superior court found that Maryna, due to her job, was in a better position to pay the home’s mortgage and upkeep, awarding her the marital residence.[5] On appeal, Kenneth argued that the lower court erred by awarding Maryna the residence because he was dependent on the house.[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the lower court did not abuse its discretion weighing the different factors in the case, ultimately awarding the home to the person who could afford to maintain the residence.[7] Kenneth’s poor health, inability to work and destruction of a number of marital assets were properly weighed against Maryna’s recent immigration, modest earning capacity as a janitor and lack of health problems.[8] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that in an equitable division of marital assets proceeding, it is reasonable to award the contested marital residence to the party with the ability to afford for the property’s upkeep and mortgage.[9]

 



[1] 306 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 1287.

[3] Id. at 1285.

[4] Id. at 1286–89.

[5] Id. at 1286.

[6] Id. at 1289.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 1287.