Alaska Supreme Court Cases
Since 2003, Kara has rigorously represented clients in a total of 31 Supreme Court Appeals. A few of the many cases are outlined below.
Case: Bagley v. Bagley
Represented: Jennifer Bagley
Date: April 30, 2014
Summary: Jennifer Bagley and Daniel Bagley divorced after 25 years of marriage in 2011. During the divorce proceedings, both ex-spouses agreed to undergo a valuation and distribution of their marital property. Jennifer offered expert testimony revealing that 80% of Jennifer’s medical benefits were not martial property and all of Daniel’s benefits were. Additionally, it was argued that Jennifer had little earning capacity and unemployed while Daniel was still employed. Based on these findings, the superior court ruled that Jennifer should be awarded 65% of the martial estate and Daniel 35%. After the decision, Daniel filed for an appeal, arguing that the superior court erred in its judgement by distributing the martial property before determining its value. Nyquist Law Group represented Jennifer Bagley before the Alaska Supreme Court and won the case. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the superior court’s decision, holding that the court’s findings were supported by the record, the property division was consistent with the unequal division that both parties argued for, and the valuation for each item of property was based on uncontested evidence or explicit findings of fact.
Case: Bennett v. Bennett
Represented: Eugenia Bennett
Date: September 25, 2019
Summary: Anthony Bennett and Eugenia Bennett filed for divorce in December 2014 after having two children together. During the divorce proceedings, Eugenia sought permission to move with the children to Germany. However, the superior court could not find that it was in the children’s best interest to move from Alaska and her request was denied. Both parents were awarded shared physical and joint legal custody in the final decision. In 2016, Anthony moved to New Mexico for a permanent military duty assignment and Eugenia promptly filed a motion to modify the custody agreement. Eugenia was given primary physical custody and maintained the shared legal custody. Anthony left his assignment in 2017 and moved back to Anchorage but delayed his military retirement date in doing so. Eugenia filed for an amended motion to modify custody and in 2017, the superior court allowed her to move to Germany with her children. Anthony filed to modify the custody agreement in 2018 but was denied by the superior court. He then appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court and Nyquist Law Group represented Eugenia in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision and determined that it had not abused its discretion by denying Anthony’s request for custody modification.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2019/s-17323.html
Name: Kessler v. Kessler
Represented: Kenneth Kessler
Date: February 16, 2018
Summary: Kenneth Kessler purchased a condominium in the summer of 1999, shortly before he and Dianna Kessler began dating. Kenneth and Dianna lived in that condominium for nearly all of their 15-year relationship and marriage. In its property division order following the couple’s divorce, the superior court recognized that the condominium was originally Kenneth’s separate property but that it had transmuted into the couple’s marital property. The court argued it was because Dianna renovated that home and that Kenneth donated the property to the martial estate. While being represented by Nyquist Law Group, Kenneth filed an appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court. After review, the court reversed and remanded the superior court’s decision. Nyquist Law argued that the condominium only became marital property if Kenneth intended to donate it to the marital estate and proved that the evidence at the trial did not demonstrate he possessed any such intent. The Supreme Court agreed that Kenneth did not have “donative intent,” and ruled that the condominium was his separate property.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2018/s-16458.html
Name: Grove v. Grove
Represented: Cheryl Grove
Date: August 11, 2017
Summary: Cheryl and Melvin Grove married in 1986 and filed for divorce in 2013. During the divorce proceedings, the value of the husband’s post-retirement military medical benefits was greatly disputed. The superior court determined that the benefits were a marital asset but declined to value them or account for their value when dividing the marital estate. The court instead ordered that Melvin pay for comparable medical benefits to Cheryl for the rest of her life and with the money she received from him, she could only spend it on medical needs. The court also determined that most of the wife’s student loans were marital debt and allocated that debt to her. Both parties appealed the superior court’s decision regarding the husband’s medical benefits and Melvin appealed the superior court’s characterization of the student loans as marital debt. Nyquist Law Group represented Cheryl before the Alaska Supreme Court and argued that the courts assign value to Melvin’s medical benefits and consider it in the property division. The Supreme Court sided with Cheryl, affirming the superior court’s characterization of the student loans as marital debt. Additionally, they reversed and remanded for the superior court to assign a value to the husband’s post-retirement military medical benefits and to finalize an equitable distribution of the marital estate.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2017/s-16056.html
Case: Engstrom v. Engstrom
Represented: Andrew Engstrom
Date: May 15, 2015
Summary: Andrew and Becky Engstrom divorced after twelve years of marriage and one child. During the divorce case, the superior court held that the martial portion of Becky’s health insurance benefits should be based on the years of marriage as a fraction of her total years of employment. Additionally, the court decided that the value of the health insurance subsidy should be adopted as a low, individual rate. In the final decision, the court divided the martial property by 58% to 42%, favoring Becky. While being represented by Nyquist Law Group, Andrew appealed the superior court decision. He argued that the court erred in determining the marital portion of the benefits, and that they erred in the rate it selected for valuing those benefits. The law firm argued before the Alaska Supreme Court and they reversed the superior court’s division of the martial property and remanded for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.
Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2015/s-14752.html
Case: Beals v. Beals
Represented: Mark Beals
Date: March 25, 2015
Summary: Divorced parents, Patricia Beals and Mark Beals, both resided in Seward, Alaska sharing equal legal and physical custody of their two sons. In 2013, Patricia wished to relocate to Anchorage for employment-related reasons and moved to modify the physical custody arrangement so the children could move with her to Anchorage. The superior court found the proposed move was for a legitimate purpose, and, after making findings on relevant custody factors and weighing those factors, ruled that the children could move to Anchorage with the mother. Mark Beals filed for appeal, arguing that the court erred by determining that the move was for a legitimate purpose and in its custody factor findings. He claimed the court had abused its discretion in the custody decision by doing this. Nyquist Law Group represented Mark Beals during the appeals before the Alaska Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the superior court's decision after the proceedings. However, the court noted, “In light of the broad discretion we confer on the superior court to fashion a custody framework, in this very close case where both parents clearly love their children and are more than adequate parents, we cannot say the court abused its discretion.”