Timothy T. v. Stephanie T.

── Timothy T. v. Stephanie T. ── Court: Alaska Supreme Court Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA TIMOTHY T., ) ) Supreme Court No. S-18225 Appellant, ) ) Superior Court No. 4FA-14-02856 CI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION STEPHANIE T., ) AND JUDGMENT* ) Appellee. ) No. 2147 – May 20, 2026 ) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Michael A. Macdonald, Judge. Appearances: Mila A. Neubert, Neubert Law Office, LLC, Fairbanks, for Appellant. Lynda A. Limόn, Limόn Law, and Randi R. Vickers, Law Offices of Randi R. Vickers, Anchorage, for Appellee. Before: Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices. [Carney, Chief Justice, not participating.] INTRODUCTION The superior court divided marital property in a divorce. One spouse challenges the division, arguing the court abused its discretion in determining the date of separation and by declining to award an array of credits for post-separation * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. expenditures to maintain marital property. Observing no error in the superior court’s judgment, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Timothy (Tim) and Stephanie T. married in 1987. During the marriage Stephanie worked as a nurse and operated a weight-loss coaching business. Tim was a general surgeon. Stephanie first moved out of the marital home and filed for divorce in November 2014. But she moved back into the home in mid-2015. The parties then agreed to dismiss the divorce complaint in October 2015. During the period of reconciliation, Stephanie and Tim resumed some, but not all, of their prior financial relationships. The reconciliation effort ultimately failed: Stephanie moved out of the home again in October 2016 and filed to reopen the divorce in January 2017. After several years of highly contentious motion practice, trial began in October 2020. The first phase of trial focused on establishing the date of separation. Tim argued that the date of separation was in November 2014, when Stephanie first moved out of the marital residence. Stephanie argued that the separation date was in October 2016, when she moved out the second time. The superior court agreed with Stephanie, ruling that the date of separation was in October 2016. The second phase of trial addressed property division. After trial concluded in August 2021, the court divided the marital estate equally. Tim sought credits for the costs of maintaining certain marital property after the separation, including the marital home, an airplane, and two other real properties. But the court found that these were assets that Tim “held, had the personal benefit of, and is taking in this property division by agreement,” and denied any credit. Tim appeals. -2- 2147  STANDARD OF REVIEW The superior court’s determination of the date of separation is reviewed for abuse of discretion.1 The court has abused its discretion when its determination “lacks sufficient evidentiary support.”2 The court’s decisio