Alaska Supreme Court· 7/18/1986

Carlson v. Carlson

Citations

722 P.2d 222
1986 Alas. LEXIS 358

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “the act of comin-gling, in itself, does not automatically establish intent to jointly hold property, and a court always should consider the property's source when determining what assets are available for distribution”
holding that actions during marriage demonstrate intent
requiring trial court to reconsider alimony award and to state reasons for its decision
requiring trial court to reconsider alimony award and to state reasons for its decision
requiring trial court to reconsider alimony award and to state reasons for its decision
treating a four-plex as marital property even though the husband paid the down payment with his separate property because the parties had demonstrated an intent to jointly hold the building

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rabinowitz, Burke, Matthews, Compton, Moore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.