 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HATTEN v. HATTEN5/31/1996
I. INTRODUCTION
In this appeal we are required to determine whether the superior court properly characterized and apportioned tort litigation proceeds in dividing a marital estate upon divorce. In addition, this appeal involves an attorney's fees issue.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Michael and Bonita Hatten were married in 1980. They separated in August 1990, and, after a brief attempt at reconciliation, a Decree of Divorce was entered on December 2, 1992. A two-day trial was held in September 1993 for the purpose of resolving property division issues. On appeal, Michael argues that the superior court improperly included his separate property in the marital estate. At issue are tort damages in two separate cases, one pending and one completed.
The first case involved a wrongful termination action brought by Michael against a former employer, Union Oil. Michael's complaint included claims for both economic and non-economic damages. This litigation was eventually settled with Michael receiving $30,000 designated in the settlement agreement as damages for mental duress. Notwithstanding the designation, the superior court concluded that the settlement proceeds "were based more on economic loss rather than emotional distress." Accordingly, it held that the "settlement proceeds in that suit were marital property, constituting recovery for loss of earning capacity." Michael argues that the superior court's holding is flawed for two reasons: (1) as a matter of law, the superior court is required to accept the classification of damages provided for in a settlement agreement; and (2) the superior court improperly took judicial notice of Michael's deposition in the Union Oil wrongful termination litigation.
The second case involves damages stemming from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. As a commercial fisherman, Michael has pending claims for damages relating to his past and future lost earnings. Though counsel for both parties discussed this pending claim at trial, the superior court failed to make any mention of the Exxon suit in its Memorandum of Decision. Subsequently, on November 15, 1993 — forty-seven days after the superior court issued its decision — Bonita filed a motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(b). On December 7, 1993, the superior court granted Bonita's motion and issued an Addendum to its Memorandum of Decision. In the addendum, the superior court concluded that proceeds received from the Exxon Valdez oil spill are a marital asset, and it apportioned the potential proceeds as of the date of trial, September 1993. That is, the superior court held that any damages received by Michael which reflect losses occurring prior to September 1993 are marital property, but that any damages that reflect losses accruing after September 1993 are
Michael's separate property. Michael argues that the superior court erred for two reasons: (1) Bonita's Rule 60(b) motion should have been denied since it reflects an otherwise untimely attempt on her part to file either a motion for reconsideration or an appeal of the property division; and (2) even if properly granted, the appropriate legal date for dividing spill proceeds is August 1990, the date Michael and Bonita first separated, not September 1993, the date of trial.
Michael's final point on appeal is that the superior court erred in awarding Bonita $6,000 in attorney's fees.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Pending Exxon Valdez Tort Litigation Claims
1. The superior court did not err in granting Bonita's Rule 60(b) motion.
Though the issue was raised at trial, the superior court failed to address Michael's pending lawsuit again
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|