The Alaska Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of Scott King v. Courtenay Carty, clarifying how property should be divided between partners in a domestic partnership. The court's decision, issued on October 16, 2026, affects how individuals in similar relationships handle property disputes, especially those involving assets acquired before the partnership began.
Scott King and Courtenay Carty were in a romantic relationship for nearly eight years and had a daughter together. After their relationship ended in July 2023, they disagreed over the ownership of various properties and businesses. King filed a lawsuit seeking a division of what he claimed were partnership assets. The couple had agreed they were in a domestic partnership, which is a committed relationship where partners share the benefits as if they were married. However, they disputed whether certain properties, including a building owned by King before their partnership and a boat purchased during their relationship, should be considered partnership property.
The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court after the Superior Court ruled that all disputed properties belonged to the partnership. The court ordered that the assets be divided equally between King and Carty. King appealed the decision, arguing that the building and the boat should not be classified as partnership property since he owned them separately.
The Alaska Supreme Court, led by Justice Borghesan and joined by Justices Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, reviewed the case and issued a combined opinion. The court found that the lower court had erred in its classification of both the Highbush property, a building owned by King prior to the partnership, and the Carole Mae boat, which was purchased during the partnership but titled solely in King's name.
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. The court further clarified that the rules for tracing ownership of property, which apply to married couples, also apply to domestic partners.
Regarding the boat, the court ruled, "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 indicates that even if an asset is used for joint business purposes, it does not automatically become partnership property if it was acquired with separate funds and titled in one partner's name.
The implications of this ruling are significant for individuals in domestic partnerships. It clarifies that property acquired before a partnership begins does not automatically become partnership property, and it reinforces the idea that separate property remains separate even if used in a joint venture. This decision could impact future cases involving property disputes between domestic partners, providing clearer guidelines for how assets should be classified and divided.
Going forward, individuals in domestic partnerships may need to be more mindful of how they title and finance their assets. The court's ruling suggests that maintaining clear records and understanding the legal implications of property ownership can help avoid disputes. This case may also encourage individuals in domestic partnerships to seek legal advice when entering into agreements about property ownership.
As for what’s next, the case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. This means that the lower court will need to reevaluate the division of assets based on the new classifications established by the Alaska Supreme Court. There is no indication that an appeal will be pursued, but the ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future.