Bailey v. Bailey

Alaska Supreme Court

Bailey v. Bailey

567 P.2d 315, 1977 Alas. LEXIS 454

CourtAlaska Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 12, 1977

Docket3047

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 567 P.2d 315 (Bailey v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Bailey, 567 P.2d 315, 1977 Alas. LEXIS 454 (Ala. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the division of property in this divorce proceeding. The Superior Court referred the issue of property division to a Special Master who, following a hearing, filed a report purporting to distribute the parties’ property equally. The Superior ■ Court adopted the report. The only issues involved on appeal are factual. We have reviewed the record and find that the master’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. 1 We therefore af-, firm.

1

. As noted In Courtney v. Courtney, 542 P.2d 164, 169 (Alaska 1975):

We have repeatedly stated that a judicial division of property is left by the statute to the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. The aggrieved party must show that the property division is clearly unjust. (Footnote omitted.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the division of property in this divorce proceeding. The Superior Court referred the issue of property division to a Special Master who, following a hearing, filed a report purporting to distribute the parties’ property equally. The Superior ■ Court adopted the report. The only issues involved on appeal are factual. We have reviewed the record and find that the master’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. 1 We therefore af-, firm.

1

. As noted In Courtney v. Courtney, 542 P.2d 164, 169 (Alaska 1975):

We have repeatedly stated that a judicial division of property is left by the statute to the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. The aggrieved party must show that the property division is clearly unjust. (Footnote omitted.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 P.2d 315, 1977 Alas. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-bailey-alaska-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack