KAREN LAUGHLIN v. BRIAN LAUGHLIN (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT *

I. INTRODUCTION

Karen and Brian Laughlin divorced in September 2008.   The superior court's findings of fact and conclusions of law divided the parties' personal property, but the parties encountered difficulties transferring it.   Both parties filed motions to compel compliance with the court's property division order and the court responded with a deadline for the distribution of all personal property.   After the deadline passed, Karen filed a request for sanctions on the grounds that Brian had failed to transfer some of the personal property awarded to her.   Brian disputed Karen's allegations.   The court denied the request for sanctions and declined to take further action.   Karen appeals.   Because she does not actually challenge the court's denial of her request for sanctions, and because the court's order does not prevent her from filing a motion to obtain her property, we affirm.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Karen and Brian Laughlin were married in Palmer, Alaska in 1982.   Brian filed for divorce in October 2005.   The parties reached settlement on most issues prior to trial, but not on the distribution of their personal property.   The court observed that “[t]he parties had significant disagreements about the distribution of household chattels, but presented very little evidence to assist the court in characterizing, valuing, and distributing those items.”

The superior court relied on a 17-page spreadsheet the parties jointly filed after the conclusion of trial.   The spreadsheet is a list of over 350 items of personal property, with columns showing the parties' respective:  (1) estimates of value for each item;  (2) proposed distribution for each item;  and (3) comments on the condition or whereabouts of each item.   The court interlineated its valuation and distribution decisions on the spreadsheet and incorporated the spreadsheet into its findings of fact and conclusions of law.   Karen was awarded $4,308 in personal property;  Brian was awarded $4,626 in personal property.

Both parties complained that the other was not complying with the court's order and, eventually, both filed motions to compel compliance with the court's property division.   In response, the court issued an order on July 29, 2009 stating:

The parties are hereby ordered to complete all transference of personal property as awarded in the Findings and Conclusions by August 31, 2009.   If either party can demonstrate that the other intentionally damaged or destroyed items before turning them over, the Court will consider sanctions against the offending party.   If either litigant can demonstrate that s/he made documented, diligent efforts to retrieve personal property awarded to him/her from the time of this order through August 31, 2009, and the other party refused to turn over that property, the Court will consider sanctions against the offending party.   After August 31, 2009, the parties forfeit their rights to any unclaimed chattels to which they were entitled by virtue of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. After that date, the court shall only entertain Motions to Compel as to particular items of personal property not returned to the rightful owner if the party seeking the property made documented and diligent (though thwarted) efforts to retrieve the items between the time of this order and August 31, 2009.

Following this order, the parties exchanged a series of e-mails and letters to coordinate distribution of the personal property.   Karen also filed a motion for ex parte writ of assistance, seeking police assistance in obtaining the property awarded to her.   The motion explained the continuing difficulties Karen was having trying to get the property and represented that she did not know another way to proceed.   The court denied the motion for ex parte writ of assistance on the grounds that Karen's “feelings appear to be more a result of ‘contentious interactions' between the parties, and not a history of threats or violence.”   The court concluded that it would “not impose on law enforcement to supervise the exchange of personal property based upon this showing.”

After the court's August 31 deadline, Karen filed a “Status Report and Request for Sanctions.”   She listed numerous grievances, including her contention that Brian refused to let her come to the marital home to retrieve her property, that he left some items exposed to the weather outside her residence, and that he dismantled or damaged other items.   Karen attached to her Status Report a list of personal property she alleged she had not received, and she raised concerns about Brian's efforts to copy family videos as ordered.   Brian responded that with the exception of some trays and the need to copy the video tapes, “all property has been transferred.”   He acknowledged that he told Karen she could not just come to his house at any time, but contended that he proposed alternative times.   Brian filed his own spreadsheet providing descriptions of each disputed item and his comments about the status of each item.   He denied damaging any property.

Based solely on the parties' filings, the court denied Karen's request for sanctions in an order dated September 30, 2009 that forms the basis of this appeal.   The order stated:

This court will take no further action regarding the distribution of the marital estate.   It appears that the vast majority of transfer issues have been resolved.   The court shall not entertain new issues, such as the format for copying home movies.   The court will not consider revisiting any of the property distribution due to defendant's discovery of a possible IRA asset in plaintiff's name unless she can establish that this account had a balance before the date of separation.   Plaintiff shall provide to defendant the documentation necessary for defendant to make this inquiry.

Karen appeals.   Brian filed a notice of non-participation in this appeal.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review superior court orders enforcing property divisions for abuse of discretion.¹

IV.  DISCUSSION

A.  The Superior Court's September 2009 Order Did Not Leave Karen Without A Mechanism To Obtain Property Awarded To Her.

Although Karen's appeal is from the order denying her request for sanctions, her argument to our court is that the superior court's September 30, 2009 order deprives her of property the court awarded to her and leaves her “without any mechanism to enforce the judgment.”   In our view, Karen reads too much into the denial of her request for sanctions.²

In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the superior court set out a comprehensive distribution of the parties' personal property.   In response to the cross-motions to compel compliance, the court set a deadline for transferring the personal property.   The court also established a framework for adjudicating further disputes about property distribution:  (1) the parties were required to complete the property transfer by a set deadline-August 31, 2009;  (2) after the deadline, either party would be permitted to seek sanctions for the intentional damage or destruction of property or the refusal to turn over property;  (3) after the deadline, the parties would forfeit any right to unclaimed property;  and (4) after the deadline, either party would be permitted to file a motion to compel for particular items if that party could show documented and diligent efforts to retrieve the items prior to the August 31, 2009 deadline.   Karen contends that some property did not get transferred prior to the court's deadline, and that this prompted her to file the Status Report and Request for Sanctions.

Karen reads the first sentence of the superior court's September 2009 order to mean that she could not seek help from the court if Brian refused to comply with the remaining provisions in the property division order.   But read in context, the September 2009 order did little more than decline Karen's request for sanctions.   Brian's response to the request for sanctions acknowledged that he still had property to deliver to Karen, and the September 2009 order did not change the framework the court had already established for exchanging property.   We understand the superior court's directive that it “would not entertain new issues” to mean that it would only entertain issues raised before the court-imposed August 31, 2009 deadline.   We do not believe the court intended to convey that Karen would not be permitted to file a future motion to compel compliance with the court's property distribution order.³  If such a motion is filed, it will be the superior court's duty to adjudicate it.

Because Karen is not left “without any mechanism to enforce the judgment awarding her the property,” we do not reach Karen's argument that the superior court's actions implicate her rights under the petition clauses of the United States and Alaska Constitutions.

V. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the superior court's denial of Karen's request for sanctions against Brian.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Beal v. Beal, 88 P.3d 104, 111 (Alaska 2004) (citing Horchover v. Field, 964 P.2d 1278, 1281 (Alaska 1998))..  FN1. Beal v. Beal, 88 P.3d 104, 111 (Alaska 2004) (citing Horchover v. Field, 964 P.2d 1278, 1281 (Alaska 1998)).

FN2. Karen does not argue on appeal that the superior court erred in denying sanctions..  FN2. Karen does not argue on appeal that the superior court erred in denying sanctions.

FN3. Indeed, the superior court's July 2009 order specifically stated that it would “entertain Motions to Compel as to particular items of personal property not returned to the rightful owner if the party seeking the property made documented and diligent (though thwarted) efforts to retrieve the items” before the August 31, 2009 deadline..  FN3. Indeed, the superior court's July 2009 order specifically stated that it would “entertain Motions to Compel as to particular items of personal property not returned to the rightful owner if the party seeking the property made documented and diligent (though thwarted) efforts to retrieve the items” before the August 31, 2009 deadline.