Reaffirming Evidentiary Standards and No-Contact Orders in Divorce: Juma v. Peterson

Introduction

In Erick Juma v. Reketta Peterson (Alaska Sup. Ct. No. S-18942, March 26, 2025), the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the division of marital property and the continuation of a stipulated no-contact order following an eight-year marriage. Appellant Erick Juma challenged three aspects of the superior court’s divorce decree:

The extension of a mutual no-contact order;
The exclusion of several claimed debts from the marital estate; and
The valuation of a multi-unit apartment building acquired during the marriage.

This case highlights critical procedural and substantive rules governing evidence of debt, property valuation, and the standard for imposing no-contact orders in Alaska family law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Alaska unanimously affirmed the superior court. Key holdings:

No-Contact Order: Under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the court upheld the continuation of the mutual no-contact order, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Juma had committed coercion against Peterson and a third party.
Marital Debts: The court applied a “clear error” review to factual findings and held that Juma failed to present sufficient admissible evidence (witness testimony or documentation) to prove the existence or quantum of four claimed debts. Consequently, those obligations were excluded from the marital estate.
Property Valuation: The court valued the apartment building at $415,000 based on purchase price, tax assessments over time, and evidence of renovations. Under clear-error review, that valuation was sustained as reasonable and supported by conflicting testimony.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The opinion draws extensively on both statutory authority and prior Alaska decisions:

Wee v. Eggener, 225 P.3d 1120 (Alaska 2010): Upheld a stipulated no-contact order against the party who committed domestic violence. Applied an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Polen v. Miller, No. S-18218, 2023 WL 1812732 (Alaska Feb. 8, 2023): Affirmed mutual no-contact order where each party alleged domestic violence.
Hartland v. Hartland, 777 P.2d 636 (Alaska 1989): Refused to permit on appeal a challenge to evidentiary sufficiency that the appellant failed to raise at trial.
Stanhope v. Stanhope, 306 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2013): Approved exclusion of a claimed debt where the claimant failed to present sufficient proof at trial.
Thompson v. Thompson, 454 P.3d 981 (Alaska 2019): Articulated the three-step framework for dividing marital property: identification, valuation, and equitable distribution. Standard of review principles for each step were restated.
Engstrom v. Engstrom, 350 P.3d 766 (Alaska 2015): Clarified factual vs. legal questions in characterizing property as marital or separate.
Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2014): Emphasized deference to trial court’s witness-credibility determinations when reviewing oral testimony under clear-error review.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning proceeded in three parts:

No-Contact Order: Under AS 11.41.530(a)(3) (coercion) and Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d), the court first confirmed that a stipulated mutual no-contact order is permissible when domestic violence—here, coercion—is proven by a preponderance. Because the superior court found that Juma threatened both Peterson and her friend with disclosure of confidential information obtained via his military clearance, it properly exercised its discretion to continue the order.
Marital Debts: Alaska R. Civ. P. 26.1(b)(1)(F) requires disclosure and documentation of debts. Applying Hartland and Stanhope, the court held that an appellant cannot complain on appeal of evidentiary gaps at trial. Juma called only one witness for the largest claimed debt and provided no contemporaneous records; other witnesses were not produced. Under the clear-error standard, the superior court’s finding that those debts were unproven was upheld.
Property Valuation: Following Thompson’s three-step approach, the court determined that the building was marital, assessed credible evidence of its 2020 and 2023 values (purchase price, tax assessments, appraisals, and renovation testimony), and logically fixed its fair market value at $415,000. Under clear-error review, the Supreme Court found no basis to disturb that factual valuation.

Impact

This decision reaffirmed and clarified several critical aspects of Alaska family law:

Parties seeking to include debts in a marital estate must present admissible documentary evidence or live testimony at trial. Mere uncorroborated assertions will not suffice.
No-contact orders—even stipulated ones—must be supported by findings of domestic violence under AS 11.41.530. A demonstrated pattern of coercion justifies continuation of such orders post-divorce.
Trial courts retain broad discretion in valuing marital assets by weighing purchase prices, tax assessments, appraisals, and evidence of improvements. Appellate courts will defer under the clear-error standard.
On appeal, legal issues (e.g., interpretation of a statute) are reviewed de novo, but factual determinations and discretionary rulings (e.g., property valuation or no-contact orders) are accorded significant deference.

Future litigants in Alaska divorce proceedings will note the heightened importance of evidentiary preparedness and the clear thresholds for continuing protective orders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Abuse of Discretion vs. Clear-Error vs. De Novo:
- Abuse of Discretion (no-contact order): Did the trial court act within reasonable bounds?
- Clear Error (factual findings on debt, valuation): Is the decision “definitely and firmly wrong”?
- De Novo (pure legal questions): How would we rule if we decided from scratch?
Coercion (AS 11.41.530): Threatening to expose secrets or withhold legal rights to force someone’s behavior. Classified as domestic violence when between spouses.
Marital vs. Separate Property: Alaska law presumes property acquired during marriage is marital unless proven otherwise; debts incurred during marriage similarly fall under the marital estate absent contrary proof.

Conclusion

Juma v. Peterson stands as a comprehensive reaffirmation of Alaska’s evidentiary, procedural, and discretionary standards in divorce litigation. It underscores that:

Protective no-contact orders require a legally sufficient finding of domestic violence or coercion.
Parties must present concrete evidence of debts or risk exclusion from equitable division.
Property valuations by trial courts—when supported by market data, tax assessments, and credible testimony—will seldom be overturned.

The decision thus provides clear guidance for practitioners and parties to ensure all elements of marital dissolution—custody protections, debt characterization, and asset valuation—are litigated with careful adherence to Alaska’s rules of procedure and evidence.