The Alaska Supreme Court recently addressed a significant case concerning property rights within domestic partnerships. In the case of Scott King v. Courtenay Carty, the court ruled on the ownership of various assets after the couple's eight-year relationship ended. The court's decision clarifies how property acquired before and during a domestic partnership is classified and divided.
This ruling is particularly important for individuals in domestic partnerships, as it sets clear guidelines on what constitutes partnership property versus separate property. The court's opinion may influence future cases involving asset division for couples who are not legally married but have lived together in a committed relationship.
Background
Scott King and Courtenay Carty were in a romantic relationship from October 2015 until July 2023. They had a daughter together and operated two businesses during their time as partners. Following their separation, King filed a lawsuit claiming a right to various assets, including a building and a boat, which he argued should be classified as partnership property.
Both parties agreed that they had been in a domestic partnership, which is defined in Alaska as a committed relationship where partners share the benefits as if married. However, they disagreed on whether certain assets, particularly a building King owned before their relationship and a boat purchased during their partnership, should be considered partnership property.
The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court after a lower court ruled that all disputed property belonged to the partnership. King appealed the decision, particularly focusing on the classification of the Highbush property and the Carole Mae boat.
The Ruling
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision regarding the classification of both the Highbush property and the Carole Mae boat. The court found that property acquired before the partnership began cannot be classified as partnership property. Justice Borghesan, along with Justices Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, ruled that the Highbush property was not partnership property since King purchased it in 2008, long before his relationship with Carty began.
“Because the Highbush property was not acquired during the parties’ domestic partnership, it was error to classify it as partnership property,” the court stated.
Regarding the Carole Mae boat, the court ruled that it was also misclassified as partnership property. King had purchased the boat using his separate funds, and it was titled solely in his name. The court emphasized that the intent of the parties regarding property ownership is crucial, and in this case, the evidence showed that King intended the boat to remain his separate property.
“The mere use of a separate asset for marital purposes cannot transform the separate asset into a marital asset,” the court noted.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for individuals in domestic partnerships in Alaska. The court's decision reinforces the principle that property acquired before a domestic partnership is not subject to division as partnership property. This clarification helps protect the interests of individuals who enter domestic partnerships while maintaining separate assets.
Furthermore, the ruling establishes that the tracing doctrine, which is used in marriage to determine property ownership based on the source of funds, also applies to domestic partnerships. This means that assets purchased with separate funds during a domestic partnership can remain classified as separate property, provided there is clear evidence of intent.
What's Next
The case may not be over yet, as it is possible that Carty could seek further legal action in response to the Supreme Court's ruling. However, the court's decision provides a clear framework for future cases involving property disputes in domestic partnerships, potentially reducing the number of similar cases that reach the courts.