Skip to main content

Bell v. Bell

Citations

  • 794 P.2d 97
  • 1990 Alas. LEXIS 79
  • 1990 WL 85483

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the Rose approach is inappropriate where parties bought and improved property together and jointly made payments on premarital property
  • noting that shared legal custody means that parents share responsibility for making major decisions affecting child's welfare
  • holding that “[sjince the question whether the trial court employed the correct legal analysis [in applying the Rose rescission remedy] is a question of law, review of [the] claim [that this application was incorrect] is based upon our independent judgment.”
  • recognizing the legislature's intent to favor joint legal custody, regardless of the physical custody arrangement
  • concluding that Rose did not apply because the parties commingled assets
  • concluding commingling was \hardly insignificant\ and reversing trial court's application of Rose

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Burke, Compton, Matthews, Moore, Rabino, Witz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.