FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Tommy Nowak
In Sandvik v. Frazier, 573 P.3d 552 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that the superior court needed to further explain why the purchase of life insurance for a divorced spouse was not an appropriate remedial action. (Id. at 553). Sandvik and Frazier divorced and reached a settlement agreement about how to split their assets. (Id.). The parties agreed that the marital portion of Frazier’s pension plan would be divided equally with 50% survivorship to Sandvik. (Id.). However, the plan did not accommodate these terms. (Id.). It only offered options with (1) no survivor beneficiary, with (2) Sandvik as Frazier’s surviving spouse, and with (3) Sandvik as a conditional surviving spouse (so long as Frazier did not remarry). (Id.). Sandvik argued that only the second option would fully compensate her and honor the previous agreement. (Id. at 554). Frazier argued that the third option was the fairest, especially if he purchased a life insurance policy “to guarantee equivalent to survivor benefits to Sandvik for the rest of her life” (Id.). Sandvik did not like this outcome because she did not trust Frazier to diligently pay the life insurance premiums. (Id.). Because the “principal purpose” of the initial agreement was “substantially frustrated,” it was the Court’s duty to supply an essential term to preserve the wishes of both parties and “grant relief on such terms as justice requires.” (Id. at 555). The superior court ultimately decided that making Sandvik the conditional surviving spouse was the fairest option, but did not include as part of this the requirement that Frazier purchase life insurance (even though he had already agreed to do so). (Id. at 554). The Supreme Court of Alaska agreed, holding that the option to make Sandvik the conditional surviving spouse best reflected the initial intentions of the parties because Sandvik was not overcompensated, but questioned why the superior court did not incorporate the life insurance into its order. (Id. at 555–56). Vacating the superior court’s decision, the Supreme Court of Alaska remanded back to the superior court to get further clarification on their reasoning. (Id. at 556).
