── Vanessa Emery v. Jason Stone ──
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Date: May 08, 2026
Category: General
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
[email protected].
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
VANESSA EMERY, )
) Supreme Court No. S-19339
Appellant, )
) Superior Court No. 3KO-24-00017 CI
v. )
) OPINION
JASON STONE, )
) No. 7810 – March 8, 2026
Appellee. )
)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Kodiak, Stephen B. Wallace, Judge.
Appearances: Jason M. Owens, Law Offices of Blake
Fulton Quackenbush, Anchorage, for Appellant. Eric K.
Ringstad, Golden Heart Law, LLC, Fairbanks, for Appellee.
Before: Carney, Chief Justice, and Borghesan, Henderson,
Pate, and Oravec, Justices.
BORGHESAN, Justice.
INTRODUCTION
Alaska law allows the superior court to award attorney’s fees and costs to
a person who seeks and is granted a domestic violence protective order (DVPO). In
this case the superior court granted a person’s petition for a DVPO but denied her
motion for attorney’s fees and costs because she did not show proof of the fees and
costs claimed. We affirm the order denying fees and costs. As in other areas of law
where attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded to the prevailing party, the party
seeking fees and costs in connection with a DVPO must provide documentation
itemizing fees and costs incurred if the other party requests it. Because such
documentation was requested but not provided in this case, we affirm the superior
court’s order denying fees and costs.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Vanessa Emery and Jason Stone married in late 2022. They separated in
June 2023.
In February 2024 Emery filed a petition for a DVPO. She sought both
short-term and long-term relief.
The superior court granted Emery’s request for a short-term protective
order. It scheduled a hearing on the long-term protective order for February 2024. The
hearing was rescheduled several times. After a hearing at which both parties testified,
the court granted Emery’s petition in October 2024.
Emery filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees and costs, totaling $29,448,
for her petition. Stone opposed the motion, arguing that Emery failed to “provide[] any
sort of itemized billing statement, or any sort of evidence showing costs incurred, or
showing that an astronomical amount of $29,448.00 was incurred for this Long-term
DVPO proceeding.” He added that it was “baffling” that Emery’s attorney billed this
amount in the roughly three weeks before trial.
The superior court denied the motion. It stated that Emery had failed to
submit “documentation showing the hours worked related to the petition or establishing
any costs incurred.”
Emery filed a motion for reconsideration. The court denied this motion
without comment.
Emery appeals the denial of attorney’s fees.
-2- 7810
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We generally review the reasonableness of attorney’s fee awards for abuse
of discretion.1 An abuse of discretion exists if the award or denial is “arbitrary,
capricious, manifestly unrea