Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Kristy McConville v. John J. Otness (11/19/2021) sp-7570

Kristy McConville v. John J. Otness (11/19/2021) sp-7570

          Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER.  

          Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

          corrections@akcourts.gov.  



                      THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                    



KRISTY  McCONVILLE,                                                )  

                                                                   )    Supreme  Court  No.  S-17863  

                               Appellant,                          )  

                                                                                                                                

                                                                   )    Superior Court No.  1PE-16-00046 CI  

          v.                                                       )  

                                                                                            

                                                                   )    O P I N I O N  

               

JOHN J. OTNESS,                                                    )  

                                                                                                                   

                                                                   )    No. 7570 - November  19, 2021  

                               Appellee.                           )  

                                                                   )  



                                                                                                           

                                          

                     Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First  

                                                                                                

                     Judicial District, Petersburg, William B. Carey, Judge.  



                                                                                                          

                     Appearances:  Richard A. Helm, Bookman & Helm, LLP,  

                                                                                                               

                     Anchorage, for Appellant.  Darryl L. Jones, Law Office of  

                                                                  

                     Darryl L. Jones, Palmer, for Appellee.  



                                                                                                            

                     Before:         Winfree,  Chief  Justice,  Maassen,  Carney,  and  

                                        

                     Borghesan, Justices.  



                                                  

                     WINFREE, Chief Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                                    

                     The superior court determined that an unmarried couple lived for a time as  



                                                                                                                    

domestic partners and, in connection with the dissolution of the domestic partnership,  



                                                                                                                      

that a residential property one party purchased was intended to be domestic partnership  



                                                                                                                                   

property.  The court ordered a 50/50 division of the partnership equity by way of an  



                                                                                                                          

equalization payment. Theproperty owner appealsbothdeterminations and theresulting  



                                                                                                                      

equalization payment. We address only the superior court's property ruling, concluding  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

that the court erred by determining the residential property was intended to be domestic                                                                               



partnership property.                          We reverse the superior court's decision, vacate the equalization                                                



payment judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with our decision.                                                                                                      



II.           FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS            



              A.             Facts  



                             Kristy McConville and John Otness met through an online dating site.                                                                                           

                                                                                                    1  John flew to San Diego to meet Kristy,  

Kristy lived in San Diego; John lived in Alaska.                                                                                                                           



and from 2010 to 2013 they had an intermittent romantic relationship characterized by  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



lengthy times apart and frequent email correspondence.  John's primary income was a  

                                                                                                                                                            



veteran's disability pension.  Kristy worked as a pet groomer.  They often talked about  

                                                                                                                                                                              



buying property together, although neither had the resources to do so and the talk was  

                                                                                                                                                                



hypothetical.  But in late 2012 Kristy received a substantial inheritance.  

                                                                                                                                                            



                             Kristy moved to Alaska in May 2013.  She bought a property in Kasilof  

                                                                                                                                                                          



using her own funds and titled solely in her name.   Kristy asked John to make loan  

                                                                                                                                                                                



payments in exchange for living at the property with her, but he made only one payment  

                                                                                                                                                                        



and he did not pay rent.   John did some work on the property, but his receipts for  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



supplies totaled less than $5,000; Kristy claimed to have paid over $50,000 for repairs  

                                                                                                                                                                           



and improvements.  Following an alleged domestic violence incident in late 2013 or  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



early 2014, Kristy told John to either leave or start paying rent, and John left.  

                                                                                                                                                                        



                             In 2014 Kristy purchased a 40-acre, mostly undeveloped homestead near  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



Homer referred to as the Anchor Point property.  John later stayed at the Anchor Point  

                                                                                                                                                                               



property in exchange for doing some work there. About this time a credit card in John's  

                                                                                                                                                                            



              1  

                                                                                                                                                                         

                             We refer to the parties by their first names, consistent with the parties'  

                                                                                                              

briefs and the superior court records; we intend no disrespect.  



                                                                                          -2-                                                                                         7570  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

name  was  issued  on  Kristy's  account;  the  card  was  never  activated,  although  he  

                                                                                                                               



apparently used her credit cards to pay some expenses.  

                                                                                      



                    Throughout2015Kristyand John traveled and lived togetherintermittently.  

                                                                                                                                     



They discussed buying property to renovate and resell for profit, and in the fall of 2015  

                                                                                                                            



they looked into jointly purchasing property in Petersburg referred to as the Rose Lane  

                                                                                                                            



property.  Emails between Kristy and John indicated her intent that she pay the down  

                                                                                                                           



payment and closing costs and that he would obtain Veterans Affairs (VA) financing.  

                                                                                                                                     



But VA loan terms prohibited Kristy's name being on the property title because she and  

                                                                                                                              



John were not married, and she refused to proceed with the joint purchase.  

                                                                                                                   



                    Kristy  ultimately  bought  the  Rose  Lane  property  with  cash  from  her  

                                                                                                                              



inheritance.  She also bought a commercial property in Petersburg, referred to as the  

                                                                                                                               



Seaside property.  

                            



                    Kristy and John lived at the Rose Lane property together intermittently.  

                                                                                                                                     



John  did  some work  on  the  property,  but  the  amount  and  value  of  his  work  were  

                                                                                                                            



disputed. Starting in October or November John paid a joint phone and internet account,  

                                                                                                                       



the only joint bill in his name.  John also paid an electric bill when Kristy was out of  

                                                                                                         



town one month.  In July 2016 Kristy had knee surgery.  John, his mother, and his sister  

                                                                                                                            



stayed at the Rose Lane property to help while Kristy recuperated.  After an argument  

                                      



Kristy left the Rose Lane property and called the police to remove John, and their  

                                                                                                                            



relationship ended in August 2016.  

                                                       



          B.        Proceedings  



                    In October 2016 John filed a complaint for a domestic partnership division  

                                                                                                                        



of assets. John claimed that he and Kristy had a domestic partnership from 2010 to 2016  

                                                                                                                            



and that he was entitled to half of the properties Kristy acquired during that time, in  

                                                                                                                                 



addition  to  some  vehicles  and  other  personal  property.                                Kristy  sought  summary  

                                                                                                                     



                                                               -3-                                                         7570
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                       2 

judgment,  disputing the existence of a domestic partnership and John's entitlement to                                                                                                                                                  



 anyproperty. Thecourt                                                                    denied summary judgment, finding a genuinedisputeofmaterial                                                                                                                                                     



 fact about whether a domestic partnership existed.                                                                                                                                              



                                                   After   hearing   trial testimony                                                                                  from Kristy,                                        John,   and   John's  sister,   the  



 superior court determined that a domestic partnership had existed, but between only an                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



 unspecified date in 2013 and August 2016. And the court found that only the Rose Lane                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 property was intended as domestic partnership property.                                                                                                                                                               The court awarded John 50%                                                                      



 of the Rose Lane property's equity and directed the parties to reach an agreement on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 "how to effectuate" the award.                                                                                        



                                                   Kristy sought reconsideration on grounds that the court failed to place a                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 value on the partnership property, that there was insufficient evidence of a domestic                                                                                                                                                                                                              



 partnership to support the court's findings, and that there was insufficient evidence                                                                                                                                                                                                               



 Kristy "intended to make the Rose Lane property partnership property."                                                                                                                                                                                                                        The court   



 denied reconsideration.                                                                   



                                                   Kristyappealsthesuperior court'sdenialofhersummary                                                                                                                                                                judgment motion,   

                                                                                                      3       But she also asserts that the court erred by determining a  

 which we will not review.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                          2                        See  Alaska R. Civ. P. 56(c) (stating summary judgment is proper if "there                                                                                                                                                                                    



 is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . any party is entitled to a judgment as                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 a matter of law").                         



                          3                        Following  a  trial  we  do  not  review  on  appeal  the  denial  of  a  pretrial  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 decision that a genuine issue of fact barred summary judgment.  See Pederson v. Arctic  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 Slope  Reg'l  Corp.,  421  P.3d  58,  67  (Alaska  2018)  ("[O]ur  case  law  is  clear  that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

  'post-trial review of orders denying motions for summary judgment - at least when the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 "motions are denied on the basis that there are genuine issues of material fact" ' - is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 precluded.   In short, 'the order becomes unreviewable after a trial on the merits.' "  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 (footnote  omitted)  (quoting Larson  v.  Benediktsson,  152  P.3d  1159,  1169  (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 2007))).  



                                                                                                                                                                -4-                                                                                                                                                   7570
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

domestic partnership existed and that, if a domestic partnership did exist, the court erred                                                                          



by finding she intended the Rose Lane property to be partnership property.                                                                               



III.          STANDARD OF REVIEW                    



                           "Property acquired by domestic partners during a domestic partnership                                                        

should be distributed according to the partners' intent."                                                       4  "The trial court's underlying  



                                                                                                                                                                       

findings as to the parties' intent are factual findings reviewed for clear error.  The trial  



                                                                                                                                                                      

court's  classification  decisions  based  on  .  .  .  intent  are  applications  of  law  to  fact  



                                        5  

                           

reviewed de novo." 



IV.           DISCUSSION  



                                                 

              A.           Domestic Partnership  



                                                                                                                                                                        

                           A domestic partnership exists when there is an agreement between the  



                                                                                                                                                                          

parties to live together indefinitely and "to share in the fruits of [their] relationship as  

though they were married," based on the totality of the circumstances.6  "If the parties  



                                                                                                                                                                    

dispute whether a domestic partnership exists, . . . the trial court must examine if or when  



                                                                                                                                                                 

the parties cohabited in a marriage-like relationship," including consideration of factors  



                                                                    7  

                                                                        

we articulated in Bishop v. Clark.  



                                                                                                                                                                   

                           The superior court characterized both Kristy and John as "hav[ing] issues  



                                                                                                                                                                      

concerning their own recall and the credibility of their reporting," and it noted that their  



                                                                                                                                                                       

"hot and cold relationship" might have influenced Kristy's intent at different times. The  



                                                                                                                                                                

court determined that Kristy and John's relationship began in 2010 and ended in August  



              4            Tomal  v.  Anderson ,  426  P.3d  915,  922  (Alaska  2018).  



              5            Id.  at  923  (footnote  omitted).  



              6            Bishop  v. Clark, 54 P.3d 804, 810-11  (Alaska  2002),  abrogated  on other  



grounds  by  Tomal  v.  Anderson ,  426  P.3d  915  (Alaska  2018).  



              7            See  Tomal,  426  P.3d  at  922  n.4  (citing  Bishop,  54  P.3d  at  811).  



                                                                                    -5-                                                                             7570
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

2016.    The court found that initially the relationship was "often of a long-distance                                                                                                                                                



variety" and "that there was no domestic partnership between 2010 and at least some                                                                                                                                                                             



time in 2013." Acknowledging extended time periods when Kristy and John lived apart                                                                                                                                                                               



from 2013 to 2016, the court nonetheless determined that "there was a relationship here                                                                                                                                                                             



that went beyond just material interests" and it "found a domestic partnership, but one                                                                                                                           



of limited duration."                                                Kristy appeals this determination; we see no need to address it                                                                                                                                        



because, as set forth below, we reverse the court's finding that Kristy intended to share                                                                                                                                                                        



property ownership with John.                                                   



                     B.                   Domestic Partnership Property                                               



                                          After establishing a domestic partnership's existence, the superior court                                                                                                                                              



next determines if the parties intended property acquired in the course of the partnership                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                       8  This decision is based on the totality of the circumstances,9  

to belong to the partnership.                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            10  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

and "simply living together is not sufficient to demonstrate intent to share property." 



                                          In determining whether domestic partners intended to share ownership of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



property, we consider factors described in Bishop, which are similar to factors used to  

                                                                                                                                                                  



determine whether a domestic partnership exists:  

                                                                                                                                       



                                           [W]hether   the   parties   have   (1)   made   joint   financial  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                          arrangements such as joint savings or checking accounts, or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                         jointly titled property; (2) filed joint tax returns; (3) held  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                          themselves out as husband and wife; (4) contributed to the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                          payment  of  household  expenses;  (5)  contributed  to  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                          improvement and maintenance of the disputed property; and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



                     8                    Id.  at 922-23.                              



                     9                    Bishop, 54 P.3d at 811,                                                 abrogated on other grounds by Tomal v. Anderson                                                                                                               ,  



426 P.3d 915 (Alaska 2018).                                            



                     10                    Tomal, 426 P.3d at 923 (quoting Boulds v. Nielsen, 323 P.3d 58, 64 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

2014)).  



                                                                                                                                    -6-                                                                                                                           7570
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                         (6)  participated in a joint business venture.                                      Whether they   

                         have raised children together or incurred joint debts is also                                           

                         important.[11]  

                                                   



"[E]ven when . . . factors tilt heavily toward finding partnership property, other evidence  

                                                                                                                                                  

may show that the parties had no such intent for particular pieces of property."12                                                                        The  

                                                                                                                                                          



court does not need to find a general intent to share everything; the parties may have  

                                                                                                                                                         

different intent for different acquisitions.13  Absent an express agreement "property must  

                                                                                                                                                         

be classified strictly according to the parties' intent."14   "Partnership property generally  

                                                                                                                                                 



must be distributed equally (or unequally if the parties intended unequal shares), while  

                                                                                                                                                        

separate property must be distributed solely to its owner."15  

                                                                                                                  



                         The court noted at trial that "[Kristy] had all the assets" and that John "was  

                                                                                                                                                         



. . . getting a free place to live, all of his expenses were being paid essentially."  The  

                                                                                                                                                          



superior court found   "a clear intent on Kristy's part to live with John in whatever  

                                                                                                                                                



property she would ultimately purchase. . . . [with] no expressly stated intent on Kristy's  

                                                                                                                                                   



part to share ownership with him."  The court stated:  

                                                                                                    



                         Kristy, at least, never intended to share all of her property  

                                                                                                                         

                         with John.  As a practical matter, it was all her property.  Did  

                                                                                                                                  



             11          54 P.3d at 811,               abrogated on other grounds by Tomal v. Anderson                                                  , 426   



P.3d 915 (Alaska 2018) (citations omitted).                      



             12          Boulds, 323 P.3d at 64, abrogated on other grounds by Tomal v. Anderson,  

                                                                                                                                               

426 P.3d 915 (Alaska 2018).  

                                           



             13          Tomal, 426 P.3d at 923.  

                                                              



             14          Id. ; see also Bishop, 54 P.3d at 811, abrogated on other grounds by Tomal  

                                                                                                                                                      

v. Anderson , 426P.3d915 (Alaska2018) ("[A]bsent an expressagreement, courtsshould  

                                                                                                                                                      

closely examine the facts in evidence to determine what the parties implicitly agreed  

                                                                                                                                                     

upon." (emphasis added) (quoting  Wood v. Collins, 812 P.2d 951, 956 (Alaska 1991))).  

                                                                                                                                                   



             15          Tomal, 426 P.3d at 924.  

                                                              



                                                                              -7-                                                                       7570
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                     she intend to share the fruits of all of her inheritance, so                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                    recently received, with the person with whom she had only                                                                                                                                                               

                                                    recently entered into a domestic partnership?                                                                                                                                              The court's   

                                                    answer to this is no.                                                             There are nowhere near the indicia of                                                                                                          

                                                     such an intent being present by virtue of her occasional use                                                                                                                                                               

                                                    of the possessive pronoun "our" with respect to certain items                                                                                                                                                        

                                                    of    property,    or    the    offhand    reference    to    John    as    her  

                                                    "common-law husband" or "crazy husband" on a handful of                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                    occasions.   A consideration of the factors set out in                                                                                                                                                       Bishop  

                                                     . . . leads the court to conclude that there was no general                                                                                                                                                

                                                    intent on the part of Kristy to share all of her property, or the                                                                                                                                                             

                                                    fruits of her inheritance, with John.                                                                                                       



The superior court ultimately found that, under all the circumstances, only the Rose Lane                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



property was intended to be joint partnership property. The court noted Kristy and John                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



cohabited on the property; there were "[u]tility bills . . . in [John's] name"; following                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



Kristy's   knee   surgery   "John   assisted   Kristy   in   her   rehabilitation   there";   and   "John  



worked on and made improvements to [the] property."                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                    Kristy and John cohabited on the property, but we have "emphasize[d] that                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 simply living together is not sufficient to demonstrate intent to share property as though                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                      16         The  phone and internet account in John's name was, as the court pointed  

married."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



out, "the rare instance of John being legally and financially responsible for any ongoing  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



account."  And Kristy removed John from the property less than two weeks after her  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



knee surgery, minimizing anycontributionhemight havemadeduring her rehabilitation.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



The only factor that may slightly favor John is the fifth Bishop factor:  "contributed to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

the improvement and maintenance of the disputed property."17  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                          16                        Id.  at 923 (quoting                                                      Boulds, 323 P.3d at 64).                                                        



                          17  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                    Bishop, 54 P.3d at 811, abrogated on other grounds by Tomal v. Anderson,  

                                                                                       

426 P.3d 915 (Alaska 2018).  



                                                                                                                                                                    -8-                                                                                                                                                        7570
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                          Wehaveaffirmedafindingofintentto sharedomesticpartnershipproperty,                                                           



for example, upholding the award of half of a house's value to each party after a roughly                                                               

                                              18  One party purchased a home, and the second party's name was  

eight-year cohabitation.                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                             19  The second  

not added to the property title because of a previous default on a mortgage.                                                                               

                                                                                                                         



party contributed to the down payment and closing costs, paid a weekly sum greater than  

                                                                                                                                                                



the monthly mortgage payment, and made home renovations involving the "kind of  

                                                                                                                                                                   

significant planning and design decisions . . . that only a homeowner would make."20  

                                                                                                                                                    



                           The parties agreed that John did some work at the Rose Lane property, but  

                                                                                                                                                                  



they disputed  the value and  necessity  of his work.                                                     The court made no  credibility  

                                                                                                                                            



determination for the disputed contributions, merely saying "John worked on and made  

                                                                                                                                                              



improvements to this property." John did not contribute to the down payment or closing  

                                                                                                                                                          



costs. He made no consistent payments for rent or upkeep. And any improvements John  

                                                                                                                                                               



made were not demonstrably extensive or significant.  John's contributions, standing  

                                                                                                                                                       



alone without any other Bishop factors weighing in his favor, do not support his claim  

                                                                                                                                      



of shared ownership.  

                    



                          The court based its finding of Kristy's intent to share ownership of the Rose  

                                                                                                                                                               



Lane property with John primarily on her filling out a VA loan application on his behalf.  

                                                                                                                                                                         



The court said:  

                     



                          There was an attempt, by Kristy, to finance the purchase of  

                                                                                                                                          

                          the home with a VA loan in John's name.  This is the one  

                                                                                                                                       

                          instance in this case where John might have had an actual  

                                                                                                                                  

                          financial stake in a piece of property being purchased by the  

                                                                                                                                        



             18           Tolan v. Kimball                 , 33 P.3d 1152, 1156 (Alaska 2001),                                    abrogated on other          



grounds by Tomal v. Anderson                                , 426 P.3d 915 (Alaska 2018)).                



             19           Id. at 1152-53.  

                                      



             20           Id. at 1154-55.  

                                      



                                                                                 -9-                                                                          7570
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                                                   

                    parties.  The loan was not able to be obtained, for technical  

                                                                                                                 

                    reasons that are not particularly germane to this discussion.  

                                                         

                    (Emphasis in original.)  



                                                                                                                               

When denying reconsideration, the superior court noted that the VA loan "plan fell  



                                                                                                                             

through for reasons having nothing to do with a repudiation of [Kristy's] intent [to share  



                                       

ownership with John]."  



                                                                                                                           

                    But the record contradicts the court's findings. Emails between the parties  



                                                                                                                                  

reflect Kristy's intent to "pay the down[]payment on a property" and "include [John] as  



        

half owner" (emphasis omitted).  John indicated he had spent two weeks "setting up a  



                                                                             

loan," but he explained to her that "the V.A. loan cannot have anyone but the vet on it  



                                                 

. . . you cannot be on with me" (emphasis omitted).  Kristy responded:  "I NEED to at  



                                                                                                                          

least share in the ownership . . . . It would be foolish to do otherwise . . . . No one invests  



                                                                                                                                      

in a property [and] leaves their own name off of [t]he Deed." (Emphasis in original.)  



                                                                                                                                   

John "cancelled [his] going ahead on this property" and told her to "go ahead and do it  



              

on your own."  



                                                                                                                                  

                    The record clearly indicates that Kristy was willing to share ownership in  



                                                                                                                              

the Rose Lane property contingent on John sharing in the financial obligation and both  



                                                                                                                          

of them being named on the property title.   The loan that was to have been John's  



                                                                                                                             

financial contribution prohibited Kristybeing namedas an owner; Kristy's intent to share  



                                                                                                      

ownership thus lapsed.  Finding otherwise was clearly erroneous.  



                                                                                                                                  

                    Even  assuming  Kristy  and  John's  relationship  rose  to  the  level  of  a  



                                                                                                                       

domestic partnership, the factors used to determine intent for property to be domestic  



                                                                                                                                

partnership property do not support an intent to share ownership, and based on the  



                                                                                                                        

evidence in the record finding an intent to share ownership of the Rose Lane property  



                   

was clearly erroneous.  



                                                               -10-                                                         7570
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

V.              CONCLUSION  



                                The    superior    court's    ownership    equity    award    is    REVERSED,    the  



equalization   payment judgment is                                                    VACATED,   and   the matter is REMANDED for                                                                        



further proceedings consistent with this opinion.                                                 



                                                                                                          -11-                                                                                       7570
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC