Nevertheless, even after the property division, Annette did not have a sound financial situation because she had no income other than Earl’s support payments and she was supporting their son. It appears that the parties expended attorney’s fees totaling about $40,000 and that Earl’s were not significantly less that Annette’s. The property awarded to Earl had substantially less relative value than that awarded to Annette, but the net disparity is not large in comparison with either the total fees the parties expended or Earl’s adjusted annual income. Earl relies on two cases in which we upheld the denial of attorney’s fees. See Johnson, 564 P.2d at 76-77 (ruling that the superior court’s denial of attorney’s fees was reasonable); Carstens v. Carstens, 867 P.2d 805, 811 (Alaska 1994) (<HOLDING>). Those cases are factually distinguishable
holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate holding that it was reasonable to deny a motion for attorneys fees where the spouse moving for attorneys fees had received a significant cash settlement but had a lower future earning capacity holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife