Attorney Peggy Roston's Legal Cases

Divorce and separation

Bilbao v. Bilbao, 205 P.3d 311 (Alaska 2009)

Apr 17, 2009

OUTCOME: Case affirmed on appeal.

In a divorce proceeding the trial court divided the marital property of the parties evenly, distributing half to each. The husband argues that the court erred in characterizing certaub funds as marital ... property because they originated in separate property such as pension payments and a workers' compensation award. The wife argues that the husband failed to meet his burden of proving that the certificates were separate property through tracing. Because the husband had the burden of tracing these assets and failed to do so, the trial court correctly found them to be marital property.

Child custody

Gault v. Gault, MOJ 2006 WL 3387268, (Alaska 2006) (NO. S-12071)

Nov 22, 2006

OUTCOME: Order modifying custody AFFIRMED.

This is an appeal from an order modifying child custody. The order transferred primary physical custody from Charis Gault to Michael Gault of the parties' child, Michael Jr. The mother asks this court ... to review the changed circumstances and best interests findings under AS 25.20.110 and AS 25.24.150, which led to the superior court's modification order. She argues that there is no evidence to support the superior court's findings that changed circumstances called for modification and that modification is in the child's best interests. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's findings that the child's continued poor academic performance while in his mother's care met the standard for changed circumstances.

Divorce and separation

Duffus v. Duffus, 72 P.3d 313 (Alaska 2003)

Jun 20, 2003

OUTCOME: VACATED and REMANDED

Juliann Duffus divorced Kenneth Duffus in 1990, receiving primary custody of the parties' two children. Nine years later, no support order having yet been entered, Juliann moved to establish Kenneth's ... child support obligation. She appealed, contesting several aspects of the method used to calculate Kenneth's 1990 support obligation, as well as the superior court's refusal to increase Kenneth's support in later years to reflect his increased annual earnings. The court holds that Juliann's failure to object to the trial court master's recommended support calculation for 1990 precludes review of support for that year except on one point reflecting plain error. They reversed the support determination for subsequent years, holding that, because no child support order had been entered when Juliann filed her 1999 motion, the rule against retroactively modifying support did not prevent the court from adjusting Kenneth's 1990 support obligation to reflect his increased earnings over the following years.

Divorce and separation

Manelick v. Manelick, 59 P.3d 259 (Alaska 2002)

Nov 22, 2002

OUTCOME: Court reversed conclusion concerning the value of the practice. Court remanded issue of piano debt. Court affirmed the superior court's valuation of the Range Rover.

In this appeal of the superior court's property division, Natalie Manelick challenges the superior court's valuation of her medical practice. Because the superior court failed to make findings as to th ... e marketability of the goodwill of that practice, they reversed the superior court's valuation of goodwill and, because the record demonstrates that the goodwill was not marketable, they hold that no value may be assigned to it. Because both parties agree, they hold that the superior court erred in failing to include a debt the parties owed on a piano in the property division order. Finally, they hold that the superior court did not err in assigning a marital car a value of zero.

Child custody

L.L.H. v. S.C.H.,MOJ, 2002 WL 1943659, (Alaska 2002) (NO. S-10172)

Aug 21, 2002

OUTCOME: AFFIRMED

*1 Lloyd H.1 appeals the decision of the superior court awarding sole legal custody of his son Jonah to his former wife Sally H. Lloyd seeks reversal because the court did not hold a hearing on the mot ... ion to modify custody and it did not address the factors listed under AS 25.24.150(c) in rendering its decision. Because all parties waived hearing and because the superior court made the proper findings for an award of sole legal custody, they affirm the decision of the superior court.

Divorce and separation

Martin v. Martin,52 P.3d 72 (Alaska 2002)

Jul 19, 2002

OUTCOME: Alaska Supreme Court affirmed trial court's finding that husband's premarital business was converted to marital property.

A husband appealing the property division in a divorce contends that the trial court erred in finding that the parties intended to treat the husbands premarital business as marital property. ... The court affirms, because the husband used marital funds to finance the business and because, at the husbands request, the wife made substantial uncompensated contributions to the business during the fifteen-year marriage. The court also affirms the contested property valuations, but reverses the award of the husbands premarital camera to the wife.

Family

Korn v. Korn, 46 P.3d 1021 (Alaska 2002)

May 10, 2002

OUTCOME: Case reversed and remanded. Alimony and property division are separate. Wife is not required to pay for rental income for living in home.

Trial judge added alimony to wife's list of assets. Trial judge also assigned rental income to wife who had remained in the home after separation. I represented wife on appeal from trial court's deci ... sion.

Workers compensation

Municipality of Anchorage v. Robertson, 35 P.3d 12 (Alaska 2001)

Nov 16, 2001

OUTCOME: Based on the above analysis, the Board's decision that the coming and going rule precluded compensation to Mr. Robertson is reversed and remanded. The court affirms the Board's finding that the MOA parking garage is part of the MOA's premises.

Appellant, Mr. Robertson, was crossing "G" Street to get from the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) parking garage to work at the MOA's "Hill" building. Parking is provided in the MOA parking garage to M ... OA employees at a discounted rate. There is no dispute that Mr. Robertson was injured when he slipped on ice as he stepped up to the curb. Mr. Robertson made a claim for Workers' Compensation and this claim was heard by the Workers' Compensation Board (Board). The Board denied Mr. Robertson's claim because going to and coming from work is not covered by Workers' Compensation. In reaching this decision, the Board found that Mr. Robertson's accident was not within the "special hazards" exception to the going and coming rule. Mr. Robertson appealed the Board's decision to deny him coverage and the MOA cross-appealed the Board's finding that the MOA parking garage is part of the employer's premises.

Family

Wright v. Wright, 22 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2001)

Jan 01, 2001

OUTCOME: Case affirmed on appeal

Husband sought retroactive modification of child support. Trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Civil Rule 90.3(h) prohibits the retroactive modification of child support.

Child support

Faust v. Faust, MOJ, 2000 WL 34545807, (Alaska 2000) (NO. S-8930)

Jul 19, 2000

OUTCOME: The AK Supreme Court affirmed stating the trial court had the discretion to conclude neither party was the prevailing party.

This was a post-divorce motion to enter a child support order above the limit found in Civil Rule 90.3. The trial judge’s order set child support in an amount more than father’s amount and less than m ... other’s amount. Mother filed a motion for attorney’s fees arguing she was the prevailing party and entitled to an award o attorney’s fees un Civil Rule 82. The trial court denied the motion deciding that neither party was the prevailing party.

Peggy Roston's Legal Cases (17)

Bilbao v. Bilbao, 205 P.3d 311 (Alaska 2009)

Gault v. Gault, MOJ 2006 WL 3387268, (Alaska 2006) (NO. S-12071)

Duffus v. Duffus, 72 P.3d 313 (Alaska 2003)

Manelick v. Manelick, 59 P.3d 259 (Alaska 2002)

L.L.H. v. S.C.H.,MOJ, 2002 WL 1943659, (Alaska 2002) (NO. S-10172)

Martin v. Martin,52 P.3d 72 (Alaska 2002)

Korn v. Korn, 46 P.3d 1021 (Alaska 2002)

Municipality of Anchorage v. Robertson, 35 P.3d 12 (Alaska 2001)

Wright v. Wright, 22 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2001)

Faust v. Faust, MOJ, 2000 WL 34545807, (Alaska 2000) (NO. S-8930)