Skip to main content

Rose v. Rose

Citations

  • 755 P.2d 1121
  • 1988 Alas. LEXIS 96
  • 1988 WL 58448

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that none of the disputed assets appreciated in value during the marriage
  • allowing, in marriages of short duration with no significant commingling of assets, property distribution “in the nature of rescission”
  • affirming the superior court's tracing of assets in property division after 18-month mar riage during which parties did not commingle their assets
  • “We have long recognized the trial court’s broad discretion in determining a just disposition of property based upon the particular facts before it.”
  • \We have long recognized the trial court's broad discretion in determining a just disposition of property based upon the particular facts before it.\
  • in marriage of short duration, boat purchased by husband after marriage not marital property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 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.