The Alaska Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Scott King v. Courtenay Carty, which addresses the division of property following the end of a domestic partnership. The court's decision on October 16, 2026, affects how partners in similar situations can expect their assets to be divided when their relationship ends. The ruling clarifies the ownership of property acquired before and during a domestic partnership, potentially influencing future cases involving cohabiting couples.
Scott King and Courtenay Carty were in a romantic relationship for nearly eight years before separating in July 2023. They had a daughter together and operated two businesses during their partnership. When their relationship ended, King filed a lawsuit seeking a division of their assets, claiming that certain properties should be considered partnership property. The dispute centered around a building that King owned before their relationship began and a boat that was purchased during their partnership but titled solely in King's name.
The couple agreed they were in a domestic partnership, which is a recognized legal status in Alaska that allows couples to share assets as if they were married. However, they disagreed on whether the building and the boat should be classified as partnership property. The Superior Court of Alaska ruled that both items were indeed partnership assets and ordered them to be divided. King appealed the decision, arguing that the court erred by classifying the building and the boat as partnership property.
The Alaska Supreme Court, led by Justice Borghesan and joined by Justices Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, reviewed the case. The court determined that the building, which King purchased in 2008 before the partnership began, could 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 means that property owned before a domestic partnership cannot automatically be considered shared property.
Regarding the boat, named Carole Mae, the court also ruled in favor of King. The court found that the boat was purchased with King's separate funds and titled solely in his name, stating, "The Carole Mae was purchased ... using only King's undisputedly separate funds." The court emphasized that just because the boat was used for family outings and business purposes did not mean it was partnership property.
The implications of this ruling are significant for individuals in domestic partnerships in Alaska. The court clarified that the special property rules that apply to domestic partnerships do not extend to property acquired before the partnership began. This sets a clear precedent that only property acquired during the partnership can be classified as partnership property, which may affect how future cases are decided.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of tracing ownership of assets. The court applied principles similar to those used in marriage cases, stating that the intent of the parties regarding property ownership must be considered. This means that if one partner purchases an asset using their separate funds, that asset remains theirs, regardless of how it is used during the partnership.
As a result of this decision, Scott King will retain ownership of the Highbush property and the boat, while Courtenay Carty will keep the equity in the Wood River house. This outcome highlights the need for partners to clearly understand how their assets may be classified and divided should their relationship end.
Looking ahead, this case may influence similar disputes in Alaska and possibly beyond, as it provides clarity on the classification of property in domestic partnerships. The court's ruling indicates that partners should be cautious about how they title their assets and the sources of funds used for purchases during their relationship.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether this case can be appealed further. However, the decision sets a precedent for future cases involving domestic partnerships in Alaska, particularly concerning property division.