The legal history of this lawsuit began in 1976, the year Duane and Tammi were married. They gave birth to their lone kid in 1983, but they split up in 1992. After Tammi filed for divorce, the supreme court gave an order in 1993 granting joint custody. Tammi received a divorce judgment on April 14, 1994. The Supreme Court then issues the memorandum of judgment on January 23, 1998. (""Edelman V. Edelman"").
The Alaska Supreme Court is currently debating a number of topics. The first concern is with compensation. The division of marital property is another problem. The problem of attorney's fees is the last one. When it comes to deciding the division of property, the lower court takes some steps. The first step involves dealing with the set net permit. The court analyzed the permit which was in Duane's name. However, Tammi argues that the permit was erroneous. The second step is to identify the marital residence’s assets. The third step is the analysis of the pension fund.
Question 4
Based on the reading of the case, it is evident Alaska is an equitable distribution state. For this reason, the distribution may include all the property if the court decrees. Here, the equitable distribution is what the court considers fair, and it does not mean half or equal (Knowlton 211). For example, the wife was not entitled to reorientation alimony's award and so on.
Question 5
Some of the assets that are in dispute, in this case, include then marital residence and the pension fund. Also, the Exxon Valdez is contested by Duane. Even though the claims of Exxon Valdez are a marital asset, its value is speculative.
Question 6
The court decided that the “set net permit” was a separate property of the husband. In other words, the husband acquired this property before marriage. For this reason, there is no way he could share it with his wife.
Question 7
The primary issue regarding the valuation of the marital home revolved around the accuracy of the method used. In fact, Tammi assets that the use of $ 202,500 figure by the court as the property’s value was incorrect. In her argument, Tammi notes that the valuation resulted from the 8.79-acre property's wrong treatment. She further uses a September 1994 appraisal for citing the figure ("Edelman V. Edelman").
Question 8
In trying to deal with the post-separation payments of the wife of the marital home’s mortgage, the court first valued the residence. Precisely, the value of the residence was $202,500. Moreover, this home was subject to about $52,000 as a mortgage. Ultimately, the net value of the home was $150,000. Tammi was to make payments for maintaining the marital property.
Question 9
Regarding the tort claim, Tammi appeared to have suffered the harm or loss that resulted from the separation. Consideration should be made regarding the fact that one party paid from non-marital income for the preservation of the property (Knowlton 216).
Question 10
In this case, the original order of alimony was issued in October 1993. Here, there was a requirement that Duane pays Tammi $2,000 per month. Also, the court held a hearing with the aim to fix arrears of Duane to Tammi a definite amount of dollar following the parties’ request.
Works Cited
"Edelman V. Edelman." Justia Law, 2017, https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme- court/2000/s-8562-1.html.
Knowlton, Natalie Anne. "The Modern Family Court Judge: Knowledge, Qualities, And Skills for Success." Family Court Review, vol. 53, no. 2, 2015, pp. 203-216. Wiley-Blackwell, doi:10.1111/fcre.12144.
