The Alaska Supreme Court recently ruled on a property dispute between Scott King and Courtenay Carty, who were in a domestic partnership for nearly eight years. The court's decision, issued on October 16, 2026, clarifies how property is classified in domestic partnerships, particularly regarding assets acquired before the partnership began. This ruling could have implications for future cases involving domestic partnerships in Alaska.
King and Carty's relationship began in October 2015 and ended in July 2023. They had a daughter together and operated two businesses during their partnership. Following their separation, they disagreed on the ownership of various properties, including a building and a boat. The superior court initially ruled that these assets were partnership property and ordered them to be divided between King and Carty. King appealed the decision, arguing that the court incorrectly classified the assets.
The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court under docket number S-19268. The court's opinion, delivered by Justice Borghesan, addressed two main assets: a building King owned prior to the relationship and a boat purchased during the partnership. The court found that the building, which was used for a vacation rental business, was not partnership property because it was acquired before the partnership began. Similarly, the court ruled that the boat, although used for family outings and business, was also King's separate property since it was titled in his name and purchased with his own funds.
The court stated, "Because the Highbush property was not acquired during the parties’ domestic partnership, it was error to classify it as partnership property." The ruling emphasized that the special property rules for domestic partnerships apply only to assets acquired during the partnership, not before it began. The court also noted that the rules for tracing ownership of property that apply to married couples should similarly apply to domestic partners.
Justice Borghesan, along with Justices Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, highlighted that the superior court's classification of the Highbush property and the boat as partnership assets was incorrect. The court reversed these classifications and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal framework surrounding property ownership in domestic partnerships in Alaska. It reinforces the idea that property acquired before a domestic partnership cannot be classified as partnership property, which may affect how similar cases are handled in the future. The decision also underscores the importance of intent in determining property ownership, a principle that applies to both domestic partnerships and marriages.
The outcome of this case may have broader implications for individuals in domestic partnerships, as it sets a precedent for how courts should approach property disputes in these relationships. It emphasizes the need for partners to clearly understand the nature of their property and the potential legal ramifications of their agreements.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether King or Carty will seek further legal action or appeal the decision. The court's ruling has established a significant precedent regarding the classification of property in domestic partnerships, which may influence future cases. As domestic partnerships continue to gain recognition, this ruling will likely be referenced in similar disputes involving property ownership.