A man's home is his castle -but not a woman's

Alaska is a state that is supposed to make fair distribution of marital assets. You might think if you were were in your own home paying the mortgage that it would be be impossible to make you leave.

That might be true if you are a man in Alaska but apparently is not if you are a woman.

Having already given control of tens of thousands of dollars of business revenue, the bank account, business inventory, even the phone lines to the man in a divorce case, one might reasonably expect the poor weak woman to get the home and hearth as her portion of the divorce settlement.

The caveat here is THERE WAS NO SETTLEMENT! As hard as it might be to believe, the judge granted a divorce without a property settlement. Granting possession of virtually all the marital assets to the ex, the judge just plain refused to deal with the business of separating marital property. Having granted the ex the divorce he wanted February 1, 2008, the judge then gave him possession of nearly everything we owned.-indefinitely!

Division of property is a major issue that keeps people together, probably second to issues of child custody and support. Many couples bicker for years but stop short of the D word for the simple reason that EVERYONE LOSES IN A DIVORCE. No one gets everything they want.

The law in Alaska does not permit a bifurcated divorce, that is, a divorce without settling the thorny issues first, unless both parties agree. If they cannot agree, and one party wants bifurcation, the law requires a showing, on the record, of how the property rights of the opposing party will be protected. These are not my words; they are in the Alaska statute. They are there to protect people not able to protect themselves and their property, and are supposed to be upheld by the courts.

In most states, bifurcated divorce is not allowed. It is cumbersome and causes too many financial problems. The incentive to cooperate in reaching a conclusion to the divorce after granting the decree may be gone on the part of the person who wanted to divorce. Parties who wish to steal from the former spouse may have carte blanche to do so. Most often, the party who abuses the process is the man.

The judge in my case refused to grant me support, refused to give me my property, refused to allow me access to my own business and took my home. He refused to enforce his order for mortgage payments. He gave everything to my ex. He gave nothing to me. The law in Alaska is supposed to prevent this from happening. Anyone has the Constitutional right to due process.

Well, actually, the judge gave me something very important. He gave me basis for a Supreme Court Appeal.