FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Cara Shanahan
In Stockton v. Stockton, 532 P.3d 735 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that (1) a person who is experiencing depression but still able to work and care for children is not so incompetent as to invalidate a default judgment dividing marital property; and (2) failure to effectively serve a notice of default will not void a default judgment if the party being served had reason to know the action against them was ongoing. (Id. at 739-740). Here, a husband served his wife with a complaint for divorce in Alaska. (Id. at 737). The wife failed to answer this complaint and moved to Washington. (Id.). Since the wife failed to answer the complaint, the husband applied for entry of a default judgment. (Id.). However, the husband served a copy of the application for default judgment to the marital home in Alaska rather than the wife’s new address in Washington. (Id.). When the wife failed to respond to the notice, a default judgment was entered against her. (Id.). The wife claimed the judgment should be overturned on multiple grounds. (Id. at 739). First, she claimed that the judgment was invalid because she was rendered incompetent by severe depression. (Id. at 739). She also argued that the judgment was void for insufficient service of process since the husband did not send the notice to her new Washington residence. (Id.). The supreme court upheld the lower court’s holdings that (1) the wife was not incompetent and that (2) the insufficient service did not void the default judgment. (Id. at 739-740). It reasoned that the wife was competent enough to understand the legal proceedings because she had been working for 25 years as a court clerk and was capable of caring for her grandchildren. (Id. at 738). The court further reasoned that, because the wife had previously been served with a summons and complaint, she had reason to know that the action against her was ongoing. (Id. at 740). Therefore, the insufficient service did not void the default judgment. (Id.). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) those experiencing depression but functioning normally are not so incompetent as to overturn a default judgment; and (2) insufficient service of notice will not void a default judgment where the party being served has reason to believe the action against them is ongoing. (Id. at 739-740).
