Urban v. Urban

[FAMILY LAW]

In Urban v. Urban,[1] the supreme court held that in a divorce proceeding, a court may rely on property tax assessments over a real estate agent’s estimate.[2] In their divorce proceeding, Martha and Delbert Urban disagreed on the value of land they owned.[3] The lower court ultimately valued the couple’s property based on a tax assessment.[4] On appeal, Delbert argued that the superior court erred in its property valuation.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that since the lower court’s decision was reviewed for abuse of discretion, its decision that the tax assessment was more reliable than the realtor’s opinion was not reversible error.[6] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that reliance on tax valuation in regards to property appraisal is reasonable.[7]

 

 



[1] 314 P.3d 513 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 515–16.

[3] Id. at 514.

[4] Id. at 515.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 515–16.

Urban v. Urban

[FAMILY LAW]

In Urban v. Urban,[1] the supreme court held that in a divorce proceeding, a court may rely on property tax assessments over a real estate agent’s estimate.[2] In their divorce proceeding, Martha and Delbert Urban disagreed on the value of land they owned.[3] The lower court ultimately valued the couple’s property based on a tax assessment.[4] On appeal, Delbert argued that the superior court erred in its property valuation.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that since the lower court’s decision was reviewed for abuse of discretion, its decision that the tax assessment was more reliable than the realtor’s opinion was not reversible error.[6] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that reliance on tax valuation in regards to property appraisal is reasonable.[7]

 

 



[1] 314 P.3d 513 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 515–16.

[3] Id. at 514.

[4] Id. at 515.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 515–16.