With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Vezey, 171 P.3d at 1128-29)). 16 . Without specifying a time frame, Kenneth's evidence implies that much of the work he did to address the mold problem predated the separation. One of Maryna's friends testified that there was black mold up the walls of the bedroom when she regained possession of the house; he did not state that this was a recent development, though that could be implied from his testimony. 17 . See Fortson v. Fortson, 131 P.3d 451, 464 (Alaska 2006) (declining to reach issue of alleged error in superior court's classification of ftems as non-marital where any error was minor in relation to the entire estate at issue and probably had no "appreciable effect on the ultimate determination of equitable distribution"); Vachon v. Pugliese, 931 P.2d 371, 376 (Alaska 1996) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Hooper v. Hooper, 188 P.3d 681, 686

A: holding that superior court erred in granting judgment nov and remanding for a new trial generally
B: holding that although the superior court clearly erred in finding certain statements of the wife to be false there was enough other evidence bearing on her credibility that it was highly improbable that the superior court would have assessed her credibility more favorably but for the errors
C: holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment
D: holding trial court erred in finding purported wife unavailable to testify and admitting her sworn prior statements in lieu of her live testimony where record did not support courts ruling in light of its own finding that remarriage of wife and defendant was fraudulent and wife did not refuse to testify if claim of privilege was denied
B.