## Facts

- Raymond Boulds (appellant) and Elena Nielsen (appellee) lived together from 1993 until they separated in 2009.
- The couple never married, though they at times wore wedding rings, and they had three children together.
- Throughout most of the relationship, Boulds worked full time and provided the family’s main financial support, while Nielsen stayed home to care for the children.
- Boulds claimed Nielsen as a dependent on at least one of his tax returns.
- Through employment, Boulds accrued several benefits, including an insurance death benefit, a retirement account (often described as a 401(k) or similar plan), and a union pension governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
- Boulds named Nielsen as the beneficiary for the pension’s pre-retirement death benefit.
- After the separation, Nielsen brought an action in superior court to classify and divide property under Alaska’s domestic partnership property doctrine for unmarried cohabitants.
- The superior court classified the insurance death benefit and the retirement account as Boulds’s separate property, but concluded the ERISA-governed union pension was domestic partnership property and ordered it divided equally.
- Before the court entered the final implementing order dividing the pension, Boulds appealed the pension ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether ERISA preempts or otherwise prohibits an Alaska court from awarding an unmarried cohabitant a share of an ERISA-governed pension as part of a domestic partnership property division.
2. Whether the superior court clearly erred in finding that, under Alaska domestic partnership property law, Boulds intended to treat the pension as shared partnership property.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s classification of the union pension as domestic partnership property subject to equal division.
- The court held that ERISA did not bar Nielsen from receiving a portion of the pension because ERISA permits payment to an “alternate payee” under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), and Nielsen could qualify as an “other dependent” based on the record.
- The court concluded the superior court’s intent finding was supported by objective evidence of the parties’ long-term, marriage-like financial arrangement and was not clearly erroneous.
- The court remanded for the superior court to enter the necessary order(s) to implement the pension division.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska does not treat cohabitation alone as creating shared property rights; an unmarried couple’s property rights turn on whether they intended, expressly or impliedly, to share assets as though married.
- Alaska courts apply a structured approach to domestic partnership property disputes: identify property acquired during the relationship, determine which items are partnership property based on intent to share, and then divide partnership property equitably (often equally when supported by the facts).
- Intent to share may be proved by objective conduct, including how the parties organized family finances, relied on one another for support, treated one partner as a dependent, and used employment benefits as family security.
- On appeal, a trial court’s finding of intent in a domestic partnership property case is reviewed for clear error; appellate courts defer when the finding is supported by the record.
- ERISA’s anti-alienation rule and broad preemption clause do not block enforcement of a state domestic relations order that qualifies as a QDRO.
- A QDRO may recognize an “alternate payee” who is a spouse, child, or “other dependent” of the plan participant; if the recipient fits within that category and the order meets statutory requirements, the plan may pay benefits directly as ordered.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the superior court’s determination that Boulds’s ERISA-governed union pension was domestic partnership property because the evidence supported a finding that the parties intended to share it as part of their long-term family arrangement, and ERISA allowed the award to Nielsen through a QDRO recognizing her as an alternate payee.


Boulds v. Nielsen, 323 P.3d 58 (2014)