In Wilkins v. Wilkins,[1] the supreme court held that failure to value a party’s post-retirement health benefits for purposes of property division in legal separation or divorce proceedings is a reversible error. A key issue in the legal separation proceeding between Paul and Yvette Wilkins was ensuring that Ms. Wilkins’ was left with sufficient medical insurance due to her serious medical condition. In the lower court’s property division order, the court ordered Ms. Wilkins to refinance the marital home in her own name to free Mr. Wilkins from mortgage obligations. In exchange, Mr. Wilkins was to pay spousal support and pay for Ms. Wilkins’ COBRA coverage. The superior court reasoned that this exchange eliminated the need to put a value on Mr. Wilkins’ post-retirement health benefits. On appeal, the supreme court reversed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that in equitably dividing marital assets courts must (1) decide what property must be divided, (2) value that property, and (3) divide the property equitably. An “equalization payment” does not constitute a valuation of assets. Without a valuation, there is no way to review whether the property division was equitable. Additionally, while in an earlier case the supreme court had endorsed a premium subsidy approach to valuing post-retirement health benefits, in Wilkins it recognized that there are other means of valuation, and a trial court may exercise its own discretion regarding expert witness methods of valuation. Reversing the lower court’s decision, supreme court held that failure to value a party’s post-retirement health benefits for purposes of property division in legal separation or divorce proceedings is a reversible error.
[1] 440 P.3d 194 (Alaska 2019).
