Bell v. Bell
1990 WL 85483, 1990 Alas. LEXIS 79, 794 P.2d 97 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For marriages of short duration where parties have significantly commingled their assets, property division must follow the standard equitable division framework, not a rescission-like approach aimed at returning parties to their pre-marital financial positions. Additionally, a single point of disagreement between parents who otherwise demonstrate an ability to cooperate does not justify a finding that they are incapable of communication for the purpose of denying joint legal custody.
Facts:
- Greg Bell and Debra Bell were married in January 1986 and separated sixteen months later in July 1987.
- During the marriage, the parties maintained separate bank accounts but both contributed to household expenses and joint financial endeavors.
- Debra obtained a $2,000 loan in her name so Greg could purchase a 'lumber tree' for his business, and both parties made payments on this loan.
- Both parties contributed funds toward payments and improvements on a ten-acre property Greg had purchased before the marriage; this property was later lost in lieu of foreclosure.
- The parties sold Debra's pre-marital car and combined the proceeds with $4,300 from Debra's savings and $600 from Greg to purchase a Chevrolet pick-up truck for $7,200.
- During the marriage, Debra also purchased a king-size bed, a video camera, and a vacuum cleaner, all of which Greg retained after the separation.
- For 14 months after separating, Greg and Debra successfully shared physical custody of their son, Scott, on a weekly alternating basis and cooperated on major decisions, including medical care.
Procedural Posture:
- Greg Bell filed for divorce from Debra Bell in an Alaska trial court.
- A Partial Decree of Divorce was entered, reserving the issues of child custody, child support, and property division for trial.
- Following the trial, the court awarded sole legal and physical custody to Debra Bell, set child support based on its calculation of Greg's income, and ordered Greg to reimburse Debra $15,300 for her contributions to property acquired during the marriage.
- Greg Bell (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment on all three issues to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a divorce proceeding for a short-term marriage, does a trial court err by applying a property division method in the nature of rescission, which reimburses one spouse for contributions to the marital estate, when the parties have significantly commingled their assets?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, Chief Justice
No. A rescission-like remedy for property division is inappropriate for a short-term marriage where significant commingling of assets has occurred. The trial court's finding that there was no merger of assets was erroneous because the parties combined thousands of dollars to acquire and improve various properties, such as the pick-up truck and the Point McKenzie property, and shared liability on a loan. This significant commingling distinguishes the case from Rose v. Rose, where the parties maintained completely separate economic identities. Furthermore, a reimbursement remedy is inequitable where marital assets have greatly depreciated, as it unfairly shifts the entire loss to one party. Therefore, the property division must be remanded for the trial court to apply the standard three-step analysis from Wanberg v. Wanberg. The court also found the denial of joint legal custody to be an abuse of discretion, as the trial court's finding of an inability to cooperate was clearly erroneous, resting only on a single disagreement about daycare while ignoring a fourteen-month history of successful co-parenting.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of the Rose v. Rose exception for property division in short-term marriages in Alaska. It establishes that the 'rescission' or 'unscrambling' approach is only suitable when parties have kept their financial lives almost completely separate. The decision reinforces the primacy of the standard Wanberg equitable division framework, holding that any significant commingling of assets requires a court to identify, value, and equitably divide the marital estate, rather than simply reimbursing one party. This prevents the inequitable outcome of one party bearing the full loss of depreciated marital assets.
