(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent.
My main concern is with that portion of the decree which gives to Mrs. Allen a life estate in the residential property, as long as she lives in the home and does not remarry, and which places upon Mr. Allen the obligation of making monthly mortgage and assessment payments of $571, as well as bearing the cost of any “major repairs”. Mr. Allen receives in return any appreciated value increase over the current equity in the house and lots in the event that someday the property is sold.
Mr. Allen contends that these expenses are unfairly placed upon him, and that any reliance upon appreciated future value as a return is purely speculative. He also contends that he will have little money left each month for his own living expenses.
The trial court explained that “a lot of things” led it to its decision concerning the house, and specifically mentioned three considerations.
First, the court felt that Mr. Allen had a moral obligation, though not a legal one, to contribute to the support of Lizabeth, Mrs. Allen’s daughter by her prior marriage. The court held:
“Mr. Allen when he undertook the marriage although there’s no evidence at least that he adopted her child, he certainly assumed some obligation whether legal or otherwise to provide a home for her because the child came with the wife.”
There is a legal duty in Alaska of a parent to support his child. AS 25.20.030. There is no legal duty, however, for such third persons as the second husband of the child’s mother to provide support. Indeed,
“[n] either spouse is liable for the debts or liabilities of the other incurred before marriage, and, except as otherwise provided, neither is liable for the separate debts of the other. . . . ” AS 25.-15.050.
*397“When property is owned by one spouse the other has no interest which makes the property liable for the contracts or liabilities of the spouse who is not the owner of the property, except as provided in this chapter.” AS 25.15.010.
Thus, the expressed legislative policy is not to impose such a duty. Further, as a matter of general legal principle there should be no duty on Mr. Allen after he and Mrs. Allen have gone their separate ways. There is no need for such a duty; Liza-beth has substantial rights under AS 25.20.-030 against Mrs. Allen and her father. Had Lizabeth been adopted by Mr. Allen, the results would be different. In my view this is an insufficient basis on which to require Mr. Allen to contribute to the support of Lizabeth.
Second, the court gave any future appreciation of the value of the house to Mr. Allen. In light of Mrs. Allen’s life tenancy, this has little current value. While the lot adjacent to the house might have been undervalued by the court, and general property values may well rise, it does not seem fair to tie up Mr. Allen’s resources in an involuntary long-term investment which cannot practically be liquidated except at the whim or upon the death of Mrs. Allen.
Third, the court resorted to various unnamed considerations, mentioning only one: that Mrs. Allen will forego any benefits under Mr. Allen’s Teamsters’ retirement plan. This appears to be highly speculative, and insubstantial.
My review of the record reveals that the relative amount of monthly living money awarded each party are grossly disproportionate, even when calculated so as to resolve doubts in favor of Mrs. Allen. Under the decree Mr. Allen is left with an amount on which to maintain himself which is computed as follows:
Monthly Take-Home pay $1700.001
DEBTS Initial •g ¾ o
Bank Americard $ 35.00 Oo On O O
Child Support 250.00 tsj Oi O O O
Publishing Co. 71.20
571.00 House Payment2 571.00
$ 856.00 Superior Court Total $ 927.20
164.05 ADD: Car payments 3 164.05
175.00 Margaret Allen ($5,000) 175.00
$1195.05 $1195,05 $1266.25
Monthly Net After Payments $ 504.95
Additional Debts:
Alaska National Bank (Master Charge) 660.00
Margaret Allen’s Attorney Fees 700.00
“Major repairs to family home” (unknown)
In calculating Mrs. Allen’s monthly living money, it must be kept in mind that she will be receiving shelter rent-free under the court’s decree. Therefore, some *398figure must be included to reflect that she will not pay rent out of her monthly living money, while her former husband must do so. Out of the many possible figures, I have chosen simply the amount of the mortgage-and-assessment payments. This amount may well be lower than an actual rent figure, although perhaps Mrs. Allen could obtain an adequate apartment for a lower amount. Under my reading of the record, Mrs. Allen is left with the following amount on which to maintain herself,:
Monthly Take-Home Salary ($452 bi-monthly) $ 904.00
Child Support (first marriage) 62.50
Rent not paid4 571.00
Effective Monthly Take-Home Income $1537.50
DEBTS Initial Monthly
Oil (House)5 $120.00 $120.00
MUS (House) 6 . 35.00 35.00
GVEA 35.00 35.00
Nerlands ($936.70) 50.00 50.00
Sears ($864.09) 81.25 81.25
Fairbanks Hospital 51.20
Dr. Doolittle 116.50
Dr. Johnson 100.00
Tanana Valley Clinic 95.00 _
$683.95 $321.257 321.25
Monthly Net After Payments $1216.25
Mrs. Allen, then, receives a minimum of two and one-half times the monthly living money left to Mr. Allen ($1216.25 as compared with $504.95). If Mr. Allen’s additional fixed debts are considered, she receives relatively more. Considering the general cost of living price levels in the Fairbanks, Alaska, area where the parties reside, it is my opinion that the trial court’s award amounts to an abuse of discretion. No alimony was awarded to Mrs. Allen, as she holds employment. And, as noted above, an award for child support in this case would be improper.
I would hold the superior court’s award to be “clearly unjust”,8 and remand the *399case for further consideration as to the disposal of the family real estate.
An order that the property be sold within a reasonable time, and the proceeds divided, would go far towards satisfying the trial court’s concern about Lizabeth’s future by providing Mrs. Allen with funds from which she could satisfy her legal duty to supply a home for her child. It would improve Mr. Allen’s cash position, remove the possible friction of relying on Mr. Allen to effect “major repairs”, and more effectively terminate a relationship which could not longer endure. Since, however, this would result in both a reduction of Mrs. Allen’s effective income by $571.00, and a reduction of Mr. Allen’s monthly debt payments by a similar amount, some redistribution of debt payments in favor of Mrs. Allen would also be in order, so as to better balance the financial obligations of the parties.9 In view of the majority’s disposition of this case such a redistribution is only of academic interest.
For the reasons given, I would reverse and remand for a new determination by the superior court.
. $800 to $850 bi-monthly. I use the larger figure for approximation purposes.
. Includes mortgage, sewer and water assessments on house lot and adjacent lot. Asses-ments amount to $3,893.03 annually, or $324.-42 monthly, leaving $246.58 monthly towards the mortgage.
.The amount shown was stipulated. The decree erroneously lists as $174.04. Judge Yan-Hoomissen may have inadvertently used the figure because of the confusion over the exact amount of the payments.
. Using value of house payments only. The figure might possibly be higher, but for approximation purposes I have chosen the lower figure. The $176 monthly payments by Mr. Allen are not included as income, since they are intended as part of an outright property settlement, even though they are included in Mr. Allen’s debts, because as a practical matter that money will not be his to spend on living costs.
. . I include house expenses, even though Mr. Allen’s house (or apartment) expenses are not included. The reason is that, again I am giving Mrs. Allen the benefit of the doubt in these listings.
. Municipal Utilities System.
. The superior court lists this as $421.25. As the debt to Dr. Johnson does not appear to be a monthly expense and the court’s and my figures agree as to initial expenses, I conclude that the court’s figure was arrived at through an error in addition.
.A showing that a property division is “clearly unjust” is sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See Mullaly v. Mullaly, 518 P.2d 1395, 1398 (Alaska 1974); Moore v. Moore, 499 P.2d 300, 304 (Alaska 1972); Ross v. Ross, 496 P.2d 662, 663 (Alaska 1972); Vanover v. Vanover, 496 P.2d 644, 645 (Alaska 1972); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 466 P.2d 821, 822 (Alaska 1970); Houger v. Houger, 449 P.2d 766, 771 (Alaska 1969); Stroecker v. Stroecker, 428 P.2d 384, 386 (Alaska 1967); Groff v. Groff, 408 P.2d 998, 1000, 1001 (Alaska 1965); McSmith v. McSmith, 387 P.2d 454, 455 (Alaska 1963); Crume v. Crume, 378 P.2d 183, 186 *399(Alaska 1963); Rhodes v. Rhodes, 370 P.2d 902, 905 (Alaska 1962); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 (Alaska 1962).
. I do not mean to imply that the situation of the parties financially need be equalized, but merely that the disparity between them under the decree entered is too great.