The Alaska Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Scott King v. Courtenay Carty, impacting how property is divided in domestic partnerships. The court reversed lower court decisions regarding the ownership of two significant assets after the couple ended their nearly eight-year relationship. This ruling clarifies the legal standards for property acquired before and during a domestic partnership.
Scott King and Courtenay Carty had a romantic relationship that lasted from October 2015 until July 2023. During their time together, they had a daughter and operated two businesses. However, after their separation, they disputed the ownership of various properties, including a building and a boat. The case, filed under docket number S-19268, was heard by the Alaska Supreme Court on October 16, 2026.
The couple agreed they were in a domestic partnership, which means they intended to share the benefits of their relationship similarly to a marriage. However, they disagreed on whether certain properties should be classified as partnership assets. The Superior Court initially ruled that all disputed properties were partnership assets and ordered a division of those assets.
The Superior Court found that the Highbush property, which King owned before the partnership began, and the Carole Mae boat, purchased during the partnership but titled in King's name only, were partnership properties. King appealed this decision, arguing that the court misclassified these properties.
The Alaska Supreme Court, led by Justice Borghesan and joined by Justices Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, ruled that the Highbush property should not be classified as partnership property. The court stated, "Because the Highbush property was not acquired during the parties’ domestic partnership, it was error to classify it as partnership property." This ruling is significant because it establishes that property acquired before a domestic partnership cannot be considered partnership property.
Additionally, the court ruled that the Carole Mae boat was also incorrectly classified as partnership property. The court noted that the boat was purchased with King's separate funds and was titled solely in his name. The court stated, "Because the vessel was titled in King's name only and purchased and improved using only King's undisputedly separate funds, we reverse the court's ruling that the vessel was partnership property." This ruling reinforces the protection of separate property in domestic partnerships.
The impact of this ruling is considerable for individuals in domestic partnerships across Alaska. It clarifies that property acquired before the partnership begins remains the separate property of the individual who owned it, regardless of its use during the partnership. Furthermore, the ruling establishes that the tracing doctrine, which allows individuals to maintain ownership of property purchased with separate funds, applies to domestic partnerships as well.
This decision may influence future cases involving domestic partnerships, as it sets a precedent for how courts will interpret property ownership and division. It emphasizes the importance of intent when determining whether property is shared or separate. The ruling may encourage individuals in domestic partnerships to maintain clear records of their property and finances to avoid disputes in the future.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether either party will seek further legal action or if the case will be appealed. The court has remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, which may involve a reevaluation of the remaining assets and their classification.
As domestic partnerships continue to evolve in Alaska, this ruling provides clarity on the rights of individuals regarding property ownership and the division of assets. It serves as a reminder for those in domestic partnerships to understand their rights and the implications of their agreements.