The Alaska Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Scott King v. Courtenay Carty (Docket No. S-19268), which addresses the division of property following the dissolution of a domestic partnership. The court's decision clarifies how property ownership is determined in domestic partnerships, particularly regarding assets acquired before the partnership began. This ruling impacts individuals in similar situations, providing guidance on how property disputes may be resolved in the future.
Scott King and Courtenay Carty were in a romantic relationship for nearly eight years and share a daughter. After their separation in July 2023, they disputed ownership of various properties and businesses they had operated together. The couple had agreed they were in a domestic partnership, which is a committed relationship where partners share the benefits of their relationship as if they were married. However, they disagreed on whether certain properties, including a building owned by King before their relationship and a boat purchased during it, should be classified as partnership property.
The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court after the superior court ruled that all disputed properties, including the building and the boat, were partnership assets. King appealed this decision, arguing that the court erred in classifying the building and the boat as partnership property.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of King, stating that property acquired before a domestic partnership cannot be classified as partnership property. The court emphasized that the special rules governing domestic partnerships apply only to property acquired during the partnership. “Because the Highbush property was not acquired during the parties’ domestic partnership, it was error to classify it as partnership property,” the court stated. The justices included Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec in the ruling.
Regarding the boat, the court found that while it was used for both business and family purposes, it was titled solely in King's name and purchased with his separate funds. The court ruled that the boat did not belong to the partnership, reinforcing the idea that property ownership is determined by the source of funds used for purchase. “Because the Carole Mae was not acquired during the partnership and was purchased with separate funds, it remains King’s separate property,” the ruling stated.
This decision has significant implications for individuals in domestic partnerships. It establishes that property acquired before the partnership began is not subject to division as partnership property, which can protect the assets of individuals who enter into domestic partnerships. The ruling also reinforces the importance of tracing the ownership of assets based on the source of funds, similar to the rules that apply to married couples.
As the court noted, the legal standards for property disputes in domestic partnerships differ from those in marriages. This ruling clarifies that the principles of ownership and intent that apply to married couples should also apply to domestic partners. The Alaska Supreme Court’s decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving property disputes in domestic partnerships, offering clearer guidance on how such disputes should be resolved.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether this ruling will be appealed or if there are any related cases pending. The court's decision is final unless a party seeks further review. The clarity provided by this ruling on property rights in domestic partnerships may influence how individuals approach asset management and legal agreements in their relationships.