Compton v. Compton

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that provision of prenuptial agreement should be considered persuasive evidence of parties’ intent
• holding, in spite of a premarital agreement to the contrary, that one party's commingling of separate and marital property showed an intent to make a \gift to the marital unit\
• prenuptial agreement provides probative evidence of parties' intent to keep premarital property separate
• “We will not enforce a prenuptial agreement if the facts and circumstances have changed since the agreement was executed so as to make enforcement unfair and unreasonable.”
• “We will not enforce a prenuptial agreement if the facts and circumstances have changed since the agreement was executed so as to make enforcement unfair and unreasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Beals v. Beals
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2013-06-28· cited 81×
• Hanson v. Hanson
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2005-12-09· cited 67×
• Dunn v. Dunn
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1998-01-16· cited 45×
• Nicholson v. Wolfe
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1999-03-26· cited 41×
• Faulkner v. Goldfuss
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2002-05-10· cited 39×
• Edelman v. Edelman
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2000-06-16· cited 25×
• Heustess v. Kelley-Heustess
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2007-05-25· cited 17×
• Forshee v. Forshee
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2006-09-08· cited 14×
• Bellanich v. Bellanich
  Alaska Supreme Court· 1997-04-18· cited 11×
• Andrew B. v. Abbie B.
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2021-09-03· cited 6×
• Julie Ann Kilkenny v. Steve James Kilkenny
  Alaska Supreme Court· 2025-09-19