FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Shaun Thompson
In Hudson v. Hudson, 532 P.3d 272 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that a person concealing plans to separate from their spouse is not economic misconduct, so long as (1) marital property was not used for the [separating] spouse’s own benefit; (2) while the marriage was breaking down (whether before or after separation); and (3) there was no intent to deprive the other spouse of their share of the marital property. (Id. at 282). In June 2020, Veronica Hudson left Alaska and told her husband, Dan Hudson, that she was leaving for a short trip. (Id. at 276). After her departure, Veronica filed for divorce. (Id.). At trial, Dan testified that he accepted a severance package from his company prior to the separation and would have continued working in that higher-paying role if he knew about Veronica’s plans sooner. (Id.) Veronica testified that she concealed her plans to leave because she feared physical retaliation by Dan. (Id. at 277). The superior court determined that Veronica’s domestic violence allegations were not credible and that her actions to conceal her plans constituted economic misconduct. (Id. at 278). The supreme court reversed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that Veronica’s concealment did not damage the marital estate since Dan’s earnings after her departure were separate property. (Id. at 283). The court further reasoned that Veronica’s concealment did not result in any financial benefit to her nor decrease Dan’s share of the marital estate. (Id.). Reversing the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a person concealing plans to separate from their spouse is not economic misconduct, so long as (1) marital property was not used for the [separating] spouse’s own benefit; (2) while the marriage was breaking down (whether before or after separation); and (3) there was no intent to deprive the other spouse of their share of the marital property. (Id. at 282).
