The Alaska Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in the case of King v. Carty, which addresses the division of property in domestic partnerships. The court determined that certain assets, including a building and a boat, were not partnership property, affecting how couples in similar situations may approach property disputes in the future.

This case involved Scott King and Courtenay Carty, who were in a domestic partnership for nearly eight years. Their relationship ended in July 2023, leading King to file a lawsuit seeking a division of their shared assets. The court's ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for how property acquired before and during a domestic partnership is classified.

Background

Scott King and Courtenay Carty began their romantic relationship in October 2015 and had a daughter together. After they separated, King sought to divide what he claimed were partnership assets, which included two residences, two businesses, and a boat. The couple agreed they had been in a domestic partnership but disagreed on whether specific items should be considered partnership property.

The Superior Court in Alaska initially ruled that all disputed property belonged to the partnership. This included a building King owned before the relationship and a boat he purchased during the partnership. The court ordered a division of the assets, leading King to appeal the decision.

The Ruling

The Alaska Supreme Court, in a decision issued on October 16, 2026, reversed the lower court's classification of both the Highbush property and the Carole Mae boat as partnership assets. 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 was based on the understanding that property acquired before a domestic partnership does not fall under the same classification as property acquired during the partnership.

Furthermore, the court ruled on the Carole Mae boat, emphasizing that it was titled solely in King's name and purchased with his separate funds. The court explained, "The mere use of a separate asset for marital purposes cannot transform the separate asset into a marital asset." This ruling highlights the importance of ownership titles and the source of funds in determining property rights.

Impact

The ruling in King v. Carty clarifies the legal standards regarding property division in domestic partnerships in Alaska. It reinforces the principle that property acquired before a domestic partnership cannot be classified as partnership property, thus protecting individuals' rights to their separate assets. This decision may influence future cases involving domestic partnerships, as it establishes a clearer framework for how property should be classified and divided.

Additionally, the ruling underscores the significance of ownership titles and the source of funds used to purchase assets. Couples in domestic partnerships may need to consider these factors more carefully when entering into agreements or making purchases to avoid disputes later on.

What's Next

The case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. It remains unclear whether either party will seek further appeals or if related cases are pending. The court's decision, however, is expected to have lasting implications for how domestic partnerships are treated under Alaska law.