Imre Manyoky v. Yekaterina Lutonin, f/k/a Yekaterina Manyoky

── Imre Manyoky v. Yekaterina Lutonin, f/k/a Yekaterina Manyoky ── 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 IMRE MANYOKY, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-19238 Appellant, ) ) Superior Court No. 3AN-23-09062 CI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION YEKATERINA LUTONIN, f/k/a ) AND JUDGMENT Yekaterina Manyoky, ) ) No. 2148 – May 20, 2026 Appellee. ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Josie Garton, Judge. Appearances: Imre Manyoky, pro se, Anchorage, Appellant. Joe P. Josephson, Anchorage, Law Office of Joe P. Josephson, for Appellee. Before: Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices. [Carney, Chief Justice, not participating.] INTRODUCTION During divorce proceedings, the superior court granted custody of a couple’s children to the mother with visitation to the father. The court also distributed the marital estate slightly in favor of the father. On appeal, the father broadly challenges both the custody and property awards. He also alleges procedural errors and bias by the court. Observing no errors in the superior court’s rulings, we affirm.  FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Yekaterina Lutonin and Imre Manyoky married in 2008. They have two children — one born in 2015 and the other in 2018. Lutonin, represented by legal counsel, filed for divorce in 2023, seeking primary physical custody. Manyoky, representing himself, sought sole decision-making authority and shared physical custody. Manyoky requested various forms of relief during the course of litigation, including a psychological evaluation of Lutonin, review of the judge’s conduct, and court assistance in obtaining police and hospital records. The superior court denied relief in all instances. Also, over Manyoky’s objection, the court allowed the children to temporarily travel out of state with Lutonin. Trial was held over the course of two days in July and August 2024, during which both parties testified and presented evidence. At the end of trial, the superior court promptly issued a divorce decree and findings of fact and conclusions of law. Citing concerns about Manyoky’s inability to prioritize and meet the children’s needs, the court awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody of both children to Lutonin and visitation to Manyoky. It also determined that it was fair and equitable to divide the marital estate slightly in Manyoky’s favor. Manyoky appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW The superior court holds “broad discretion” to decide child custody.1 “A trial court’s determination of custody will be set aside only if the entire record demonstrates that the controlling findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the trial court abused its discretion.”2 1 Veselsky v. Veselsky, 113 P.3d 629, 632 (Alaska 2005). 2 Hamilton v. Hamilton, 42 P.3d 1107, 1111 (Alaska 2002). -2- 2148  We review the court’s identification and valuation of property for clear error when they “involve factual findings ‘as to the parties’ intent, actions, and contrib