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. Angela Thiele v Kim Edward Thiele (10/2/2020) sp-7484

Angela Thiele v Kim Edward Thiele (10/2/2020) sp-7484

          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.us.  



                    THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ALASKA  



ANGELA  THIELE,                                                )  

                                                               )  Supreme  Court  No.  S-17256  

                             Appellant,                        )  

                                                                                                                       

                                                               )  Superior Court No. 3KN-16-00221 CI  

          v.	                                                  )  

                                                               )                    

                                                                  O P I N I O N  

                          

KIM EDWARD THIELE,                                             )  

                                                               )                                    

                                                                 No. 7484 - October 2, 2020  

                             Appellee.	                        )
  

                                                               )
  



                                

                   Appeal f                                                                         

                                rom the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                            

                   Judicial District, Kenai, Anna Moran, Judge.  



                                                                                                   

                   Appearances:            Roberta  C.  Erwin,  Palmier  Erwin,  LLC,  

                                                                                                         

                   Anchorage, for Appellant.  Shana Theiler, Walter, Theiler &  

                                                                

                   Winegarden, LLC, Kenai, for Appellee.  



                                                                                                     

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

                                                                               

                    Carney, Justices.  [Stowers, Justice, not participating.]  



                                     

                    CARNEY, Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                  

                   The primary dispute in a couple's divorce concerned the classification of  



                                                                                                                       

the  husband's  medical  practice  as  separate  or marital  property.                            The  superior  court  



                                                                                                                     

determined that  the practice  had  neither  transmuted  nor  actively  appreciated  during  



                                                                                                                          

marriage and therefore was not marital property.  The court also declined to award the  



                                                                                                                    

wife attorney's fees or reimbursement for the cost of an expert witness. The wife appeals  



                                                                                                                           

the  court's  determination that  the  medical  practice  was  not marital  property  and  its  


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

refusal to award attorney's fees or costs.   Because the trial court did not err, we affirm                                                                              



both decisions.   



II.                  FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS                         



                     A.                   Facts  



                                         Angela and Kim Thiele married in February 2009 and separated in January                                                                                                                                     



2016.   Angela filed for divorce in February 2016.                                                                                       



                                         Kim received a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree in 1980.                                                                                                                                                    After  



working as an employee in another doctor's practice, he established his own professional                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                               1   Kim worked as an  

corporation in 2001 "to provide medical care to the general public."                                                                                                                                                                                                 



independent contractor at other practices for the next ten years.  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



                                         During this time his business had few fixed assets because the doctors that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



employed him covered most of the overhead of running the medical practice.  Kim's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



business received 30% of the revenue he brought in from seeing patients, which Kim  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



deposited into the corporation's bank account.  Business expenses were paid out of the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



corporate bank account, as was Kim's salary.  

                                                                                                                        



                                         Kim's practice grew from treating approximately five patients per day in  

                                                               



2001 to treating about 60 per day by the time he left one clinic to relocate to another.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



Despite a non-compete agreement with the first clinic, many of Kim's patients followed  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



him to his new location.  

                                                



                     1                   Alaska   law   allows   licensed   professionals   to   establish   a   professional  



corporation pursuant to the Professional Corporation Act.                                                                                                                          See generally                              AS 10.45.010-  

 .510.    Generally, these corporations function much like regular corporations, but they                                                                                                                                                                      

limit directors, officers, and shareholders to those individuals licensed to provide the                                                                                                                                                                          

professional service indicated in the articles of incorporation.                                                                                                                                See  AS 10.45.050-.060.                                                        

These corporations provide limited liability to their shareholders, shielding them from   

the negligent acts of other shareholders while continuing to hold them personally liable                                                                                                                                                                   

for their own negligent acts.                                                            See  AS 10.45.140.   



                                                                                                                                  -2-                                                                                                                        7484
  


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

                                                                                                                            

                    In 2011 Kim decided to open his own practice rather than continue to work  



                                                                                                                          

as  an  independent  contractor.                  He  obtained  a  business  license  and  hired  an  office  



                                                                                                                  

manager to help him with the transition.  At about the same time Angela contributed  



                                                                                                                              

$15,000 of her own funds to the marital estate.  She helped Kim decorate the office, and  



                                                                                                                                 

she participated in discussions with Kim about taking over another doctor's practice or  



                                                                                                              

starting his own practice.   Angela also worked as a receptionist and administrative  



                                                                                                              

assistant, answering the phone, greeting patients, and performing other administrative  



              

tasks as needed.  



          B.        Proceedings  



                                                                                                                                 

                    The trial began in January 2017.  The court devoted the first day of trial to  



                                                                                                                               

determining whether Kim's medical practice was his separate property or part of the  



             

marital estate.  



                                                                                                                                     

                    Angelatestified that shebelieved sheand Kimownedthebusiness together.  



                                                                                                                          

She stated that her $15,000 contribution to the marital estate was to help pay off Kim's  



                                                                                                                                

credit cards so that he could buy supplies for the practice.  But Kim countered that he  



                                                                                                                              

was always careful to keep business and personal expenses separate.  He claimed that  



                                                                                                                      

any  money  Angela  contributed  to  the  marital  estate  was  to  help  with  the  couple's  



                      

personal land purchases, not to help the business.  Kim testified that his business took  



                                                                                                                                

out a $145,000 loan to buy supplies, office equipment, and furniture.  By the end of  



                                                                                                                            

2015, Kim's business owned two trucks, office equipment, computers, and other fixed  



                               

assets totaling over $160,000.  



                                                                                                                     

                    Angela also introduced evidence at trial indicating that she was a corporate  



                                                                                                                       

officer; she was listed as the secretary or treasurer in the minutes of various business  



                                                                                                                           

meetings.  But under cross examination, she admitted that she was secretary in name  



                                                                                                                      

only, that Kim created all the minutes, most of which were created after the meetings  



                                                                                                                               

took  place,  and  that he directed her  to  sign the documents.                                 Kim testified  that the  



                                                               -3-                                                         7484
  


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

                                                                                                                         

meetings where he designated Angela as a corporate officer were really personal dinners  



                                                                                                                    

where little, if any, business was discussed; he would document what was happening  



                                                                                                                       

within the business at the time as part of the minutes to make it look like a business  



                                                                                                                                

discussion took place.   He testified that he then declared them business meetings to  



                                                               

deduct them from his taxes as a business expense.  



                                                                                                                               

                    After hearing testimony from Angela, Kim, and Kim's office manager, the  



                                                                                                                       

court found that Kim's medical practice had not transmuted from his separate property  



                                                                                                                               

to marital property during the marriage.  But the court deferred deciding whether the  



                                                                                                                        

business had actively appreciated.   The court stated that it "[did] not have enough  



                                                                                                                              

evidence . . . to determine if Kim's medical practice appreciated during the marriage and  



                                                                                                                               

whether that appreciation [was] marital."  The court's order also noted that "Angela has  



                                                                                                                        

the burden of proving whether there was active appreciation in value of Kim's medical  



practice."  



                                                                                                                                 

                    When trial reconvened in December, Angela presented Donavon Rulien as  



                                                                                                                                

an expert witness whom she had hired to perform an active appreciation analysis of  



                                                                                                                                  

Kim's medical practice.  Rulien testified about his analysis and explained aspects of a  



                                                                                  

report he authored that detailed his methodology and conclusions.  



                                                                                                                                

                    Rulien valued Kim's medical practice as of December 31, 2015, and in his  



                                                                                                                      

report he discussed three potential approaches for valuing the business.  Each approach  



                                                                                                                        

used a different methodology to determine a business's value based on its assets, income,  



                                                                     

and comparisons to similar businesses in the market.  



                                                                                                               

                    Rulien concluded that Kim's business fit the criteria for an income-based  



                                                                                                                                 

approach:  its "recent historical normalized results of operations . . . [were] expected to  



                                                                                                                            

be indicative of [its] future operations" and its "future returns [were] expected to grow  



                                                                                                                              

at a predictable rate." Despite concluding that an income-based method of valuation was  



                                                               -4-                                                         7484
  


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

appropriate, Rulien valued Kim's business using an asset-based approach and assigned                                                                         

it a value of $245,000 as of December 31, 2015.                                                  2  



                           Rulien's  report  did  not  value  Kim's  business  in  February  2009  when  

                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                   3   But he testified that he valued it at zero as of December 31,  

Angela and Kim married.                                                                                                                                                 

                                   



2010.  He explained that the business had negative retained earnings in 2011, which  

                                                                                                                                                                  



meant that the business had no assets prior to 2011 and therefore no value prior to that  

                                                                                                                                                                       



year.   When questioned about why he failed to consider any data before 2011, and  

                                                                                                                                                                       



particularly from 2009 when Kim and Angela married, Rulien added that he also valued  

                                                                                                                                                                  

the business at zero as of the date of marriage.4  

                                                                           



                           Rulien'sreport was admittedintoevidenceover Kim's objection. Kimlater  

                                                                                                                                                                      



requested and was granted an opportunity to present evidence to rebut Rulien's opinion.  

                                                                                                                                                                                



The court scheduled an additional trial day in March 2018 to hear from Kim's expert,  

                                                                                                                                                                 



Susan Spyker.  

              



                           Spyker described three separate determinations necessary for a proper  

                                                                                                                                                                 



active appreciation analysis: (1) a valuation on the date of separation; (2) a valuation on  

                                                                                                                                                                          



             2             Rulienvalued thebusiness using the                                      adjusted net asset method, which                                 takes  



the book value of each of the business's tangible assets and adjusts them to their fair                                                                                 

market value.                  He rejected the market-based approach as unsuitable for valuing the                                                                      

business.  



             3             Rulien testified that his initial report stated Angela had requested only a  

                                                                                                                                                                            

valuation of Kim's business.  But after a call from Kim's attorney inquiring about the  

                                                                                                                                                                        

lack of a valuation on the date of marriage, and further contact with Angela's attorney,  

                                                                                                                                                             

Rulien changed the report to state he was "hired to value the active appreciation" of  

                                                                                                                                                                          

Kim's business.  

               



             4             Rulien also testified that although calculating the amount of appreciation  

                                                                                                                                                

during the marriage required a beginning value, he believed that Kim's company came  

                                                                                                                                                                    

into existence only in 2011 after the marriage.  As a result he did not believe it had any  

                                                                                                                                                                       

value in February 2009.  

                                      



                                                                                    -5-                                                                             7484
  


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

                                                                                                                                 

the date of marriage; and (3) an analysis of any appreciation between those dates to  



                                                                                                                         

determine what portion was due to active marital contributions as opposed to passive  



                                                                                                  

factors.  She faulted Rulien's analysis for skipping the last two determinations.  



                                                                                                                               

                     Spyker stated that without a valuation on the date of their marriage, it was  



                                                                                                                                      

"impossible to determine if there was any appreciation at all, either active or passive."  



                                                                                                                           

She also criticized how Rulien applied the asset-based approach to conclude Kim's  



                                                                                                                  

business had actively appreciated.  She testified that because Rulien used the adjusted  



                                                                                                                             

net asset method to value the business in 2015, accounting standards required the same  



                                                                                                                         

methodology to be used to value the business in 2009. That method required an analysis  



                                                                                                                           

of trends over the five years before the relevant date; Spyker testified that Rulien should  



                                                                                                                                

have looked at trends for the five years prior to 2009, which he did not do, as well as the  



                            

five years before 2015.  



                                                                                                                            

                     Spyker also believed that any increase in the business's value was likely  



                                                                                                                      

due to passive, rather than active, factors.  The factors Spyker believed were important  



                                                                                                                                

included Kim's preexisting patient relationships, increases in fee schedules, a shift in the  



                                                                                                                               

percentage of patients with government health plans, income from product sales and  



                                                                                                                                  

other ancillary services that the clinic began providing in 2010 or 2011, and the lack of  



                                             

any increase in Kim's office hours.  



                                                                                                               

                    The superior court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in June  



                                                                                                                           

2018,  determining  that  Angela  had  failed  to  prove  that  there  had  been  any  active  



                                                                                                                             

appreciation of Kim's business.  The court found that "Spyker's opinion carrie[d] more  



                                                                                                                           

weight" than Rulien's and stated that it "had difficulty understanding the net assets  



                                                                                                                                

method for purposes of determining active appreciation because this method did not  



                                                                                                                          

attribute any value to [Kim's business] on the date of marriage or at the time Kim opened  



                                                                                                                               

his medical clinic."  The court also noted that Rulien's valuation included "land and  



                                                                -6-                                                         7484
  


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

property that was clearly acquired as an investment and is not part of Kim's active                                                                                                                    



practice of medicine."      



                                 After concluding that Kim's medical practice was not marital, the court                                                                                                  



divided the estate.                            It awarded 52% of the marital estate to Angela and directed Kim to                                                                                                 



pay Angela an equalization payment of $35,000 within 60 days.                                                                                                         Finally, "[b]ecause   



Angela [was] awarded a substantial amount of marital assets," the court did not award   

her attorney's fees or costs for her expert.                                                            5  



                                 Angela appeals the superior court's conclusion that Kim's medical practice  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



did not transmute into marital property and that the practice did not actively appreciate  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



during marriage.  She also argues that the superior court should have required Kim to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



pay her attorney's fees and litigation costs.  

                                                                                             



III.             STANDARDS OF REVIEW  

                                                                   



                                 "[T]he characterization of property as separate or marital may involve both  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

legal and factual questions."6                                                 "Underlying factual findings as to the parties' intent,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

actions, and contributions to the marital estate are factual questions."7  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                                         "Whether a  



                                                                                                                                                                                                    

spouse intended to donate his or her separate property to the marital estate is a factual  



                                 8  

                          

finding . . . ." 



                                 "Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, but whether the trial court  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



applied the correct legal rule in exercising its discretion is a question of law that we  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



                 5               The court also did not credit Kimfor interimspousal support and attorney's                                                                                    



fees he previously paid.                       



                 6               Brennan v. Brennan, 425 P.3d 99, 104-05 (Alaska 2018) (alteration in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

original) (quoting Beals v. Beals, 303 P.3d 453, 459 (Alaska 2013)).  

                                                                                                                                                        



                 7               Beals, 303 P.3d at 459.  

                                                                                



                 8               Kessler v. Kessler, 411 P.3d 616, 621 (Alaska 2018).  

                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                        -7-                                                                                               7484
  


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

                                                                                              9  

review   de   novo   using   our   independent   judgment."     "A   factual   finding   is   clearly  



erroneous when, after reviewing the entire record, we are 'left with a definite and firm                                                         

conviction that the trial court has made a mistake.' "                                      10  



                                                                                                                                                      

                       "The superior court has broad discretion to  award  costs and fees in a  



                                                                                                                                                

divorce action. . . . We will reverse the superior court's decisions on these matters only  



                                                                         11  

                                                     

if they amount to an abuse of discretion." 



IV.	        DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                                                               

            A.	        The   Superior   Court   Did   Not   Err   By   Determining   That   The  

                                                                                          

                        Corporation Was The Property At Issue.  



                                                                                                                 

                       Angela impliedly argues that the property at issue is Kim's clinic and his  



                                                                                                                                                

practice based in it.  She asserts that because his clinical practice did not exist until after  



                                                                                                                                                   

they married, it is marital property by definition.  She points to the fact that Kim did not  



                                                                                                                                           

obtain a business license until after their marriage.  And she argues that Kim's clinical  



                                                                                                                                               

practice could only have increased in value during marriage because it did not exist  



                                                                                                                                                          

before then. She concludes, therefore, that it actively appreciated during their marriage.  



                                                                                                                                             

                       Rulien's testimony was premised on the same characterization of Kim's  



                                                                                                                                         

practice.  For example, Rulien explained that he only looked at the business's financial  



                                                                                                                                                 

records from 2011 through 2016 because Kim opened his clinical practice in 2011. And  



                                                                                                                                

he attributed his failure to value the business on the date of marriage to his understanding  



                                                        

that the business began only in 2011.  



            9          Brennan, 425 P.3d at 105 (quoting                             Beals, 303 P.3d at 459).          



            10         Kessler, 411 P.3d at 621 (quoting Abood v. Abood , 119 P.3d 980, 984  

                                                                                                                                                 

(Alaska 2005)).  

                



            11         Horning v. Horning, 389 P.3d 61, 65 (Alaska 2017).  

                                                                                                         



                                                                         -8-	                                                                  7484
  


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

                                    Kim,   on   the   other   hand,   characterizes   the   property   at  issue   as   the  



corporation itself. He testified and presented evidence that he created the corporation in                                                                                                                                         



2001.   His corporation existed before he married Angela; he asserts that his decision to                                                                                                                                         



change its business model in 2011 does not mean that the business did not exist prior to                                                                                                                                          



marriage.   He states that he listed Angela as a corporate officer out of "administrative                                                                                                     



convenience" and that the nature of his business precludes Angela from owning any                                                                                                                                            



shares or holding any officer position in the corporation.                                                                                            And he contends that Rulien's                              



active   appreciation   analysis   is  fundamentally   flawed   because   it   did   not   value   the  



corporation in 2009.                    



                                    We must first determine whether the trial court erred when it accepted                                                                                                     



Kim's   characterization  of   the   property.     Property   law   generally   concerns   legally  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   12  

enforceable rights, privileges, powers, and immunities with respect to valuable objects.                                                                                                                                                  



A  property  interest  is  the  particular  aggregation  of  rights,  privileges,  powers,  and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   13  

immunities that a person possesses with respect to an object enforceable against others.                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



Corporate property interests generally attach through ownership of stock or by virtue of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

one's position on the board of directors or as a corporate officer.14  

                                                                                                                                                         



                                    Determining  whether  Kim's  business  is  separate  or  marital  property  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



requires  us  to  look  at  the  various  property  interests  involved  in  his  professional  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

corporation and their value.  The Alaska Corporations Code15  describes the rights and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



                  12                1  POWELL ON  REAL  PROPERTY   §  2.02  (Michael  Allan  Wolf  ed.,  2002).  



                  13                RESTATEMENT  (FIRST) OF  PROPERTY   §  5  (AM.  LAW  INST .   1936).  



                  14                See  generally  1  POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY §  2.09  (distinguishing  "active"  



property   interests   associated   with   power   to   actively   manage   the   corporation   from  

"passive"  interests  associated  with  stock  ownership).  



                  15                AS  10.06.005-.995.  

                                              



                                                                                                                -9-                                                                                                       7484
  


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

powers of directors, officers, and shareholders only with respect to a corporation as a                                                                                                                                                             



                    16                                                                                                                                                                                                                             17  

whole.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                          A corporation's articles or bylaws may alter some of these rights and powers. 



But the articles for Kim's professional corporation do not do so.   Thus, there is no  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



separate property interest that exists with respect to the clinic itself.  Any interest in real  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



property that the clinic occupies would belong to the corporation. The various rights and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



powers with respect to control of the clinic or any real property used by the clinic can  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



only be exercised by shareholders, board members, or officers of Kim's professional  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



corporation.  And because it is a professional medical corporation, there are statutory  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

limits on who can serve as a director, officer, or shareholder.18  It is therefore not possible  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



to separate Kim's clinical medical practice from the rest of his professional corporation.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



The property in dispute is thus Kim's professional corporation and not the medical clinic.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                   16                 See,  e.g.,  AS   10.06.450(a)   (stating   that   unless   provided   otherwise   in  



Corporations Code, "[a]ll corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority                                                                                                                                       

of, and the business and affairs of a corporation shall be managed under the direction of,                                                                                                                                                       

a board of directors"); AS 10.06.483(c) (granting corporation's officers authority and                                                                                                                                                       

duty to manage corporation as provided in articles of incorporation, in corporate bylaws,                                                                                                                                         

and by board of directors); AS 10.06.453(e) (giving shareholders right to elect corporate                                                                                                                                    

directors at annual shareholder meeting). The Corporations Code applies to professional                                                                                                                              

corporations except where there is a conflict with the Professional Corporation Act.                                                                                                                                                                       

AS 10.45.240.   



                   17                 See, e.g., AS 10.06.450(a) (permitting directors to delegate some or all of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

their powers as provided by articles of incorporation); AS 10.06.483(b) (giving board  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

of directors power to choose corporate officers, unless otherwise dictated by articles of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

incorporation or bylaws); AS 10.06.420(a) (entitling each outstanding share to one vote  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

oneach matter submittedat shareholder meeting, except as otherwiseindicatedin articles  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

of incorporation).  

        



                   18                 AS 10.45.050-.060.  

                                                 



                                                                                                                      -10-                                                                                                                7484
  


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

The   superior   court   correctly   focused   on   whether   Kim's   professional   corporation  

transmuted or actively appreciated during his marriage to Angela.                                      19  



                                                                                                                              

           B.	       The Superior Court Did Not Err When It Concluded That Kim's  

                                                                                                                                 

                     Interest  In His Professional Corporation Did Not  Transmute Into  

                                    

                     Marital Property.  



                                                              

                     When equitably dividing property between divorcing spouses, "the court  

                                                                                                       20  "Thisclassification  

                                                                                                                     

first distinguishes betweenseparateproperty and marital property." 

process is important because only marital property is subject to division upon divorce."21  

                                                                                                                        



                     We have recognized that separate property may transmute into marital  

                                                                                                                             



property "when one spouse intends to donate separate property to the marital estate and  

                                                                                                                                   

engages in conduct demonstrating that intent."22                             In Kessler v. Kessler we clarified that  

                                                                                                                                   



the relevant intent is "the intent of the owning spouse that his or her separate property  

                                                                                                                           



be treated as marital property for the purpose of dividing property in the event of a  

                                                                                                                                      

divorce."23  



                     Angela's argument that Kim's business did not exist prior to their marriage  

                                                                                                                           



and should have been classified as marital property is not an argument for transmutation.  

                                                                                                                                          



Rather it is an argument that the superior court misclassified the property in the first  

                                                                                                                                  



           19        Although  Angela  argues  the  2011  business  license  shows  that  the  business  



did   not   exist   before   then,   the   license   was obtained   by   Kim's   corporation.    And   the  

transmutation  and  active appreciation  inquiries require us  to look  at  property  interests  

that  belonged  to  Kim,  not  the   corporation.    Cf.  Lacher  v.  Lacher,   993  P.2d  413, 422  

(Alaska   1999)   (holding   that   property   interest   held   by   third-party   was not subject   to  

equitable  division).   The  business  license  is  therefore  irrelevant  to  this  analysis.  



           20        Kessler v. Kessler, 411 P.3d 616, 618 (Alaska 2018).  

                                                                                               



           21        Id.  



           22        Id. at 618-19.  

                               



           23        Id. at 619 (emphasis omitted).  

                                                       



                                                                 -11-	                                                          7484
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                                                                                                                       

instance.   But because Kim's business did exist prior to marriage, under a different  



                                                                                                                        

operational model, the court did not err by concluding that it was his separate property  



                  

when they married.  



                                                                                                                           

                    In support of her position that Kim's separate business transmuted during  



                                           

marriage, Angela marshals four pieces of evidence that she argues demonstrate Kim's  



                                                                                                                              

intent to donate his business to the marital estate: (1) her contribution of $15,000 to help  



                                                                                                                                  

Kim pay off his credit card debts so he could obtain a business loan; (2) her presence at  



                                                                                                                        

various business meetings; (3) her stated belief that she and Kim intended the business  



                                                                                                     

to be marital; and (4) Kim's procurement of a business license in 2011.  



                                                                                                                                   

                    We dispense with the last piece of evidence first.  That Kim obtained a  



                                                                                                                            

business license in 2011 is not evidence that he intended to donate his business to the  



                                                                                                                                      

marital estate.  This remains an argument that the business did not exist prior to 2011.  



                                                                                                                           

But because it did, obtaining a business license is not relevant to Kim's intent to donate  



                              

the business to the marriage.  



                                                                                                                               

                    Turning to Angela's other pieces of evidence, the superior court found that  



                                                                                                                              

Angela had failed to show that her $15,000 donation to the marital estate was to help  



                                                                                                                      

Kim  establish  an  independent  clinical  practice.                                Angela  did  present  evidence  



                                                                                                                               

demonstrating that she transferred $15,000 to a bank account opened in both her and  



                                                                                                                             

Kim's names, but her only support for her claim that the money was to help Kim open  



                                                                                                

his clinic was her own testimony.  And Kim testified that this money was used to help  



                                                                                                                          

with their personal land purchases.  Evidence in the record supports the superior court's  



                                                                                                                                

finding, and it was not clear error for the court to find that Angela failed to prove that the  



                                                                             

$15,000 went toward the establishment of Kim's clinic.  



                                                                                                                          

                    In support of her claimthat Kimintended the business to be marital, Angela  



                                                                                                                       

testified that she was listed as secretary and treasurer for the corporation.  She provided  



                                                                                                                            

copies  of  minutes  from  various  meetings  to  support  her  testimony.                                     But  on  cross  



                                                               -12-                                                         7484
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

examination she admitted that she signed the meeting minutes only when Kim directed                                                                                                               



her to do so and that she never drafted the minutes herself as a corporate secretary would                                                                                                            



typically do.                    Kim testified that he listed Angela as a corporate officer only so he could                                                                                            



deduct the dinner from his taxes.                                                  The court found Kim's explanation credible, and we                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                           24       The evidence  

accord great deference to findings based largely on oral testimony.                                                                                                                            



supports the court's finding that Angela was an officer of the corporation in name only,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



and that Kim's listing her in minutes was not an indication that he intended to donate the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



corporation to the marital estate.  

                                                                 



                                 Finally,  Angela's belief that she and Kim intended  the business to  be  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



marital was contradicted by Kim's testimony. As we concluded in Kessler, one spouse's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 



"unexplained and unilateral belief is not evidence of [the owning spouse]'s donative  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

intent."25  



                                 The superior court did not clearly err by finding that Kim did not intend to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



donate the corporation to the marital estate, and it was not error to conclude that Kim's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      



business did not transmute during the marriage.  

                                                                                               



                 C.	             The Superior Court Did Not Clearly Err By Finding The Business Did  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                 Not Actively Appreciate.  

                                                                    



                                 "Active appreciation occurs when marital funds or marital efforts cause a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

spouse's  separate  property  to  increase  in  value  during  the  marriage."26                                                                                                              "[A]ctive  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



appreciation recognizes that a separate asset can become partly marital by growing in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



                 24              See Martens v. Metzgar                                    , 591 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1979) ("Deference to                                                                      



the findings of the superior court is particularly appropriate when . . . the bulk of the                                                                                                                     

evidence at trial is oral testimony.").                   



                 25              411 P.3d at 621.  

                                                               



                 26              Harrower v. Harrower, 71 P.3d 854, 857-58 (Alaska 2003).  

                                                                                                                                                                      



                                                                                                      -13-	                                                                                              7484
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

                                                                                         27  

value during the course of a marriage."                                                        To conclude that separate property actively                                       



appreciated a court must make three findings:                                                                 "First, it must find that the separate                            



property in question appreciated during the marriage.                                                                          Second, it must find that the                                



parties made marital contributions to the property.                                                               Finally, the court must find a causal                             

                                                                                                                                                                                     28  The  

connection between the marital contributions and at least part of the appreciation."                                                                                                       

moving spouse has the burden of proof with respect to the first two elements.29                                                                                                           The  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



burden then shifts to the non-moving spouse to show an absence of a causal connection  

                                                                                                                                                                           

between active marital efforts and appreciation of the property.30  

                                                                                                                          



                              The superior court found that Angela had failed to show any increase in the  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



business's value during marriage and that Angela therefore failed to carry her burden of  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



showing that there had been appreciation.  Angela asserts that because the clinic did not  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



exist prior to the marriage, any value attributed to the business could only be considered  

                                                                                                                                                                           



an increase.  And she compares Kim to a mechanic who initially worked for someone  

                                                                                                                                                                               



else but later opened his own shop.  

                                                                    



                              We have already concluded that Kim's business did exist before he and  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



Angela married.  Angela's analogy to a mechanic oversimplifies the nature of Kim's  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



business.  When they married, Kim worked as an independent contractor.  The clinics  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



where he worked paid his business, not Kim personally. While the clinics covered most  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



of the overhead of running the medical practice, Kim was responsible for his own  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



medical malpractice insurance and other expenses.  

                                                                                             



               27             Id.  at 858.
   



               28
            Id.  (quoting B                 RETT  R. T             URNER, E              QUITABLE  DISTRIBUTION OF                                       PROPERTY  



§ 5.22, at 236 (2d ed. 1994)).                    



               29             Hanson v. Hanson                          , 125 P.3d 299, 304 (Alaska 2005).
                              



               30             Id.
  



                                                                                             -14-                                                                                       7484
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                                  Angela's expert,                           Rulien,supportedher position,                                                  andvaluedKim'sbusiness                       



at zero when they married. But the superior court discounted Rulien's opinion and relied                                                                                                                        



instead on Kim's expert's testimony. Because "it is not our role to weigh the evidence                                                                                                        



anew, but rather to determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by the                                                                                                                                 

                     31  we will not overrule the weight that the superior court gave to this conflicting  

record,"                                                                                                                                                                                           



testimony.  

                              



                                   Our review of this matter is shaped by the way the parties tried the case in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



the superior court and by the appeal's framing.  We note that annual income actually  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          



received by a spouse from a tax-paying entity in the form of salary and other benefits or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



disbursements, or received in the form of a pass-through entity's taxable income, would  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

be a marital asset each year the parties were married.32   Questions sometimes arise about  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



whether the amount and use of that marital asset are appropriate.   For example, an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



entity's owner may have artificially lowered salary or taxable income or failed to take  

                                       



a distribution of taxable income, and used the saved or retained cash to purchase business  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



assets in either the normal course or as investment assets for the entity.   The entity  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



owner's spouse might then be able to demonstrate that these new assets were traceable  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

to a marital asset so that the new assets are marital.33                                                                                  Or the spouse might demonstrate  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



that these new assets independently showed marital-based active appreciation of the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                 31               Keturi v. Keturi                         , 84 P.3d 408, 412 (Alaska 2004).                                      



                 32               See Schmitz v. Schmitz                                       , 88 P.3d 1116, 1124 (Alaska 2004) ("[S]alaries                                 



                                                                                                                                                                                                      

earned by either spouse during marriage . . . are considered marital assets"); Lacher v.  

Lacher, 993 P.2d 413, 422 (Alaska 1999) (noting that property purchased with joint                                                                                                                                

                                          

funds is marital property).  



                 33               See  generally  Pasley  v.  Pasley,  442  P.3d  738,  745-47  (Alaska  2019)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

(discussing tracing rules and relevant evidence).  

                                                                                                                              



                                                                                                          -15-                                                                                                    7484
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

                           34  

corporation.                    But those arguments were not raised in this case.                                                         The superior court did                     



not clearly err when it found that Kim's business did not actively appreciate.                                                                 



               D.	           The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion By Declining To                                                                                         

                             Award Angela Attorney's Fees and Litigation Costs                                                                       .  



                             "The superior court has broad discretion                                                      to  award  costs and fees in a                               

divorce action."                   35     Such an award is intended "to ensure that 'both spouses have the  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

proper means to litigate the divorce action on a fairly equal plane.' "36  The superior court  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



focuses on "the parties' relative economic situations and earning capacities" to decide  

                                                                       

whether to make such an award.37  "A party's economic situation includes the divorce  

                                                                                                     



property division, and a party who receives a property settlement sufficient to cover  

                                                                                                                                                                               

incurred attorney's fees should expect to pay his or her own fees."38  

                                                                                                                                    



                             When the superior court awarded Angela 52% of the marital estate, valued  

                                                                                                                                                                             



at over $600,000, it ordered Kim to make an equalization payment of $35,000 within 60  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



days of its final order.  The court based its unequal division of the estate on the disparity  

                                                                                                                                                                        



between Angela's and Kim's income and because the marital assets awarded to Angela  

                                                                                                                                                                            



would be harder to liquidate.  When it denied Angela's request for attorney's fees and  

                                      



               34            See   Schmitz,    88    P.3d    at    1125    (discussing    marital    contributions    to  



separately-owned corporation and application of active appreciation rule).                                                                                        



               35	           Horning v. Horning, 389 P.3d 61, 65 (Alaska 2017).  

                                                                                                                                 



               36            Stevens v. Stevens, 265 P.3d 279, 290 (Alaska 2011) (quoting Fernau v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

Rowdon, 42 P.3d 1047, 1059-60 (Alaska 2002)).  

                                                                                           



               37            Id.  



               38            Id.  



                                                                                         -16-	                                                                                  7484
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

costs, the court noted the "substantial amount of marital assets" it had awarded her. The                                                                                                                                            

superior court did not abuse its discretion.                                                                         39  



V.                 CONCLUSION  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                     We AFFIRM the superior court's decision that Kim's medical practice  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

neither transmuted nor actively appreciated during the marriage, and therefore remained  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

his separate property. We also AFFIRMthe court's decision not to award attorney's fees  



                                       

and litigation costs.  



                   39                Angela argues that Kim never paid her the required $35,000 equalization                                                                                                  



payment.   If so, an action to enforce the court's order remains available to Angela in                                                                                                                                                   

superior court.   



                                                                                                                   -17-                                                                                                           7484
  

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