The Alaska Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving the division of property between two former domestic partners, Scott King and Courtenay Carty. The court's decision, issued on October 16, 2026, reversed previous rulings made by a lower court regarding the classification of certain assets. This case, known as King v. Carty (Docket No. S-19268), addresses important issues related to property rights in domestic partnerships, particularly concerning assets acquired before the partnership began.

In this case, Scott King and Courtenay Carty were in a romantic relationship for nearly eight years and had a daughter together. Following their separation in July 2023, King sought to divide the property they had accumulated during their relationship. The couple agreed that they had a domestic partnership but disagreed over whether certain items of property should be classified as partnership assets. The dispute centered on two properties: a building that King owned before the partnership and a boat purchased during the partnership but titled solely in King's name.

The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court after the Superior Court of Alaska ruled that both the building and the boat were partnership property. The court ordered that the value of these assets be divided equally between King and Carty. King appealed the decision, arguing that the building, which he owned prior to the partnership, and the boat, which he purchased with his own funds, should not be classified as partnership property.

The Alaska Supreme Court, led by Justice Borghesan and joined by Justices Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, ultimately sided with King. The court ruled that the special property rules applicable to domestic partnerships do not extend to assets acquired before the partnership began. The court stated, "Because the Highbush property was not acquired during the parties’ domestic partnership, it was error to classify it as partnership property." Furthermore, the court determined that the boat, although used in the couple's joint business, remained King's separate property because it was purchased with his own funds and titled solely in his name.

The court's opinion emphasized the importance of distinguishing between partnership property and separate property in domestic partnerships. It highlighted that property acquired during the partnership is subject to different division rules than property acquired before the partnership began. The ruling clarified that the intent of the parties plays a crucial role in determining the classification of property, stating, "Property acquired during a domestic partnership should be distributed according to the partners’ intent."

This ruling has significant implications for individuals in domestic partnerships in Alaska. It reinforces the principle that assets owned prior to a partnership are not automatically considered partnership property, even if they are used in a joint business. The decision also underscores the need for clear agreements regarding property ownership and division in domestic partnerships. By applying the same tracing rules that govern marital property to domestic partnerships, the court aims to protect the rights of individuals who may have separate assets.

Looking ahead, the ruling may influence future cases involving property disputes in domestic partnerships. It sets a precedent that could affect how courts interpret ownership and division of assets in similar situations. The decision also raises questions about the potential for appeals or further legal challenges, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending appeals.

In conclusion, the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling in King v. Carty clarifies important aspects of property division in domestic partnerships, ensuring that individuals' rights to their separate property are upheld. As domestic partnerships continue to gain recognition, this case serves as a critical reference point for future disputes over property ownership and division.