Young v. Kelly

[PROPERTY LAW

In Young v. Kelly,[1] the supreme court held work added to the value of individual fishing quotas (“IFQ”s) prior to the ending of a marriage are not marital property if the marriage ends before the IFQ program began.[2] Anna Young fished with her husband David Kelly on his boat during their marriage, contributing to one of David’s highest-yielding years.[3] David’s annual landings from 1984 to 1990, including the year he fished with Anna, were used to determine the amount of halibut shares allocated to him under the IFQ program.[4] When the IFQ program was established, after their divorce, David and Anna decided to avoid litigation of Anna’s property rights to the IFQ shares and agreed that David would give her money when she needed it.[5] David stopped paying Anna and Anna filed a lawsuit to determine her property rights.[6] The superior court granted summary judgment concluding that IFQ shares were not martial property.[7] Anna appealed noting that in some circumstances, such as with pension benefits, property vested after a marriage ends can be marital property if it is deferred compensation.[8] The court noted that, unlike with pension benefits, at the time of their marriage neither party expected any benefit from an IFQ program.[9] Therefore, Anna’s premarital work did not increase the value of an asset because the asset did not exist until the IFQ program was implemented.[10] The supreme court held work added to the value of IFQs prior to the ending of a marriage are not marital property if the marriage ends before the IFQ program began. [11]

[1] 334 P.3d 153 (Alaska 2014).

[2] Id. at 160.

[3] Id. at 154.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 159.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 160.

Young v. Kelly

[PROPERTY LAW

In Young v. Kelly,[1] the supreme court held work added to the value of individual fishing quotas (“IFQ”s) prior to the ending of a marriage are not marital property if the marriage ends before the IFQ program began.[2] Anna Young fished with her husband David Kelly on his boat during their marriage, contributing to one of David’s highest-yielding years.[3] David’s annual landings from 1984 to 1990, including the year he fished with Anna, were used to determine the amount of halibut shares allocated to him under the IFQ program.[4] When the IFQ program was established, after their divorce, David and Anna decided to avoid litigation of Anna’s property rights to the IFQ shares and agreed that David would give her money when she needed it.[5] David stopped paying Anna and Anna filed a lawsuit to determine her property rights.[6] The superior court granted summary judgment concluding that IFQ shares were not martial property.[7] Anna appealed noting that in some circumstances, such as with pension benefits, property vested after a marriage ends can be marital property if it is deferred compensation.[8] The court noted that, unlike with pension benefits, at the time of their marriage neither party expected any benefit from an IFQ program.[9] Therefore, Anna’s premarital work did not increase the value of an asset because the asset did not exist until the IFQ program was implemented.[10] The supreme court held work added to the value of IFQs prior to the ending of a marriage are not marital property if the marriage ends before the IFQ program began. [11]

[1] 334 P.3d 153 (Alaska 2014).

[2] Id. at 160.

[3] Id. at 154.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 159.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 160.