Bailey v. Bailey

• Decision Date: 14 February 1927
• Docket Number: 20182. [*]
• Citation: 142 Wash. 359,253 P. 121
• Parties: BAILEY v. BAILEY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

253 P. 121

142 Wash. 359

BAILEY v. BAILEY. No. 20182. ^[*]

Supreme Court of Washington

February 14, 1927

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Hawkins, Judge.

Divorce action by W. R. Bailey against Florence Bailey. From the decree, Florence Bailey appeals. Remanded with directions.

Thos H. Wilson and Richards, Gilbert & Conklin, all of Yakima, for appellant.

H. J Snively, of Yakima, for respondent.

MAIN J.

This is a divorce action. The trial resulted in an interlocutory decree of divorce and an adjudication of the property rights of the parties. From this decree the defendant appeals. The controversy here is over the property settlement. As we understand it, no contention is being made relative to the divorce.

The respondent and appellant were married in the state of Illinois on July 7, 1895, and there have been born to them four children, two boys and two girls. The elder boy, Dewey at the time of the trial, was 26 years of age. In 1902 the family moved from the state of Illinois and located in the city of Yakima. Soon after they arrived there, they bought some lots or a tract of land and engaged in truck farming or gardening. Both the appellant and the respondent worked hard and were economical. In time this property was paid for and had increased in value. In 1914 the respondent leased a ranch in Yakima county, a part of which had been set to fruit trees but these at that time had not come into bearing. For the first two years no rent was paid the owner of the property giving its use for the care of the young orchard. The third year a small rental was required and this increased until the year 1919, when the owner wanted a rental of $1,000. The respondent objected to paying this sum, and, after some discussion, the owner proposed that the appellant and Dewey take the lease of the property, which was verbal, as had the others been. This was agreed to. That was a good year, and they made something like $5,000, or $6,000. The Yakima property was sold for approximately $4,000. The respondent and the appellant then purchased what is referred to as the Naches property for the sum of $20,000, making a payment at the time of $10,000, which money was produced by the sale of the Yakima property above mentioned and the profits on the ranch leased during the year 1919. In 1920 the appellant brought an action against the respondent for a divorce. The parties then entered into a written contract by which the appellant was to have the management and control of all the property. After this agreement was entered into, the divorce action was discontinued, and the parties continued to live together until on or about May, 1921, when the respondent left home, and, beginning in July of that year, the appellant paid him $50 per month up to the time of the trial. For a number of years prior to that time there had been much friction between the appellant and respondent as well as between him and his sons. He would leave home, stay away for a time, and then come back and stay for awhile. After the Naches property was purchased in 1920, the two boys continued to work on the ranch, and it was largely managed by Dewey. At the time of the trial, the land and personal property was of the value of about $35,000, the land being worth at that time $20,000. The trial court made the following findings:

'The court finds: That the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of $12,000 for his share in said property, in lieu of any specific interest in said property. That the defendant is entitled to and is hereby awarded all of said property personal or real. That one-third of said $12,000, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the 17th day of April, 1925, shall be paid to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of the entry of an

...