Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.24.155 (2026)
Reservation of issues
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.24.155. Reservation of issues.
(a) The court may not delay or reserve a custody decision under AS 25.24.150(f) or an issue of property division under AS 25.24.160(c) unless
(1) each party, and the guardian ad litem if one has been appointed under AS 25.24.310, expressly agrees on the record to the delay or reservation; or
(2) a party who moves for an order of delay or reservation shows good cause and the court finds that the interests of a party opposing the motion will not be jeopardized by the delay or reservation.
(b) The court may not grant a motion under (a)(2) of this section if the court finds that granting the motion would
(1) put the opposing party's interests substantially at risk due to the death of the other party before a final disposition of the marital property;
(2) diminish the ability of the party opposing the motion to protect the value of assets not in the party's control;
(3) not be in the best interests of each minor child whose custody would remain unresolved if the motion were granted;
(4) have adverse tax consequences for the opposing party; or
(5) have adverse consequences on the opposing party's ability to maintain existing health insurance coverage.
(a) The court may not delay or reserve a custody decision under AS 25.24.150(f) or an issue of property division under AS 25.24.160(c) unless
(1) each party, and the guardian ad litem if one has been appointed under AS 25.24.310, expressly agrees on the record to the delay or reservation; or
(2) a party who moves for an order of delay or reservation shows good cause and the court finds that the interests of a party opposing the motion will not be jeopardized by the delay or reservation.
(b) The court may not grant a motion under (a)(2) of this section if the court finds that granting the motion would
(1) put the opposing party's interests substantially at risk due to the death of the other party before a final disposition of the marital property;
(2) diminish the ability of the party opposing the motion to protect the value of assets not in the party's control;
(3) not be in the best interests of each minor child whose custody would remain unresolved if the motion were granted;
(4) have adverse tax consequences for the opposing party; or
(5) have adverse consequences on the opposing party's ability to maintain existing health insurance coverage.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Husseini v. Husseini, 230 P.3d 682 (Alaska 2010).
Husseini v. Husseini, 230 P.3d 682 (Alaska 2010). “Janice argues that the trial court’s bifurcation order that allowed the legal marriage to be dissolved while reserving all issues of equitable division of the marital estate failed to meet the requirements listed in AS 25.24.155. Janice contends that “[n]o finding of any kind…”
Sloane v. Sloane, 18 P.3d 60 (Alaska 2001). “150(f) (allowing reservation of child custody decisions only if standards in AS 25.24.155(a) are met); AS 25.24.160(c) (permitting reservation of property division if requirements of AS 25.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 271 P.3d 1098 (Alaska 2012). “" With respect to the superior court's bifureation anal *1102 ysis, Irene argues: (1) AS 25.24.155 "is not a jurisdictional statute, but rather a statute outlining a process of adjudicating issues separately"; and (2) the bifurcation rules do not apply in this case because "[all…”
Jasmine R. v. Cornell R. (Alaska 2025). “”43 But we further explained that such “error [is] harmless” where “the issue of the legal marriage” is resolved first and there is no evidence that “early dissolution [of marriage] .”
Qinhua Riggs v. Eugene David Riggs (Alaska 2024). “Qinhua also argues that the court erred by bifurcating the proceedings without first finding whether her interests would be jeopardized by the delay or reservation, citing AS 25.24.155, as discussed in Husseini v.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.155(a) — 4 cases
Sloane v. Sloane, 18 P.3d 60 (Alaska 2001). “150(f) (allowing reservation of child custody decisions only if standards in AS 25.24.155(a) are met); AS 25.24.160(c) (permitting reservation of property division if requirements of AS 25.”
Husseini v. Husseini, 230 P.3d 682 (Alaska 2010). “Janice argues that the trial court’s bifurcation order that allowed the legal marriage to be dissolved while reserving all issues of equitable division of the marital estate failed to meet the requirements listed in AS 25.24.155. Janice contends that “[n]o finding of any kind…”
Wilson v. Wilson, 271 P.3d 1098 (Alaska 2012). “" With respect to the superior court's bifureation anal *1102 ysis, Irene argues: (1) AS 25.24.155 "is not a jurisdictional statute, but rather a statute outlining a process of adjudicating issues separately"; and (2) the bifurcation rules do not apply in this case because "[all…”
Jasmine R. v. Cornell R. (Alaska 2025). “”43 But we further explained that such “error [is] harmless” where “the issue of the legal marriage” is resolved first and there is no evidence that “early dissolution [of marriage] .”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.24.155(a)(2) — 3 cases
Husseini v. Husseini, 230 P.3d 682 (Alaska 2010). “Janice argues that the trial court’s bifurcation order that allowed the legal marriage to be dissolved while reserving all issues of equitable division of the marital estate failed to meet the requirements listed in AS 25.24.155. Janice contends that “[n]o finding of any kind…”
Sloane v. Sloane, 18 P.3d 60 (Alaska 2001). “150(f) (allowing reservation of child custody decisions only if standards in AS 25.24.155(a) are met); AS 25.24.160(c) (permitting reservation of property division if requirements of AS 25.”
Jasmine R. v. Cornell R. (Alaska 2025). “”43 But we further explained that such “error [is] harmless” where “the issue of the legal marriage” is resolved first and there is no evidence that “early dissolution [of marriage] .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.