Baker v. Baker
| Decision Date | 15 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 42211,42211 |
| Citation | 80 Wn.2d 736,498 P.2d 315 |
| Parties | Ellsworth J. BAKER, Appellant, v. Betty Jene BAKER, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Peter D. Preston, Seattle, for appellant.
William M. Robinson, Malcolm L. Edwards, Jack E. Wetherall, Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court in a divorce proceeding awarding child support, college expenses and alimony, and making a disposition of the property. Appeal is also being taken from a subsequent order granting additional attorney's fees.
The plaintiff (appellant), Ellsworth J. Baker, and the defendant (respondent), Betty Jene Baker, were married July 9, 1949, in Seattle. One child, a daughter, was born June 1, 1957. She was 13 years old at the time of the divorce. From 1949 to 1964, the plaintiff was employed in various capacities, including that of salesman, real estate salesman and broker, and insurance salesman. Commencing in 1964, the plaintiff returned to college, receiving his Bachelor's Degree in 1968, and his Master's Degree in Business Administration in 1971. The defendant was employed prior to the marriage, and prior to the birth of the child, in the capacities of a retail sales clerk and a rate clerk for an insurance company. She was not employed after the birth of their daughter. Throughout the marriage the parties purchased and remodeled real estate which they would sell for a profit.
In 1963, the plaintiff's mother died and left him her estate valued at approximately $100,000. The inheritance consisted primarily of stocks and some real estate, including an unfinished cabin and waterfront lot on Lake Roesiger valued at $4,950. Since 1964, outside of attending college, the plaintiff was self-employed, supporting his family from the proceeds of the sale and management of his various stock accounts inherited by him from his mother, and from the sale of other real estate pieces. Both parties devoted substantial labor to renovating and improving the cabin and an A-frame cabin and property purchased by the community on Lake Roesiger. At the time of the divorce the Lake Roesiger cabin and waterfront lot was worth $16,500, and the A-frame cabin and property was valued at about $50,000, subject to a mortgage balance of approximately $35,000. Both parties sought a divorce against the other on the grounds of cruel treatment.
The trial court specifically found that the plaintiff desired the divorce in order to marry a family friend; that the plaintiff had abandoned the defendant and the minor child of the parties in order to pursue his female friend; and that the plaintiff drank to excess. In its decree dated April 6, 1971, the trial court granted each of the parties a divorce from the other, awarded custody of the minor child to the defendant, and ordered the plaintiff to pay child support and college expenses as follows:
(U)ntil such time as she shall reach the age of twenty-one years, becomes self-supporting or married, whichever shall first occur, together with the expenses of said child's college education until she completes college or reaches the age of twenty-one years, whichever shall first occur, but in any event, plaintiff shall pay for four years of college if the minor child desires to attend college: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, in the event that said child's expenses during the period she is attending college exceed the sum of $200 in any month, plaintiff may deduct the $200 per month support payment in said month The trial court also ordered the plaintiff to pay $200 per month alimony for a period of 12 months or until the defendant remarried, whichever occurred sooner, and ordered the plaintiff to pay $750 attorney's fees and costs to the defendant. In its oral opinion the trial court determined that the total of the community property of the parties at the time of the divorce was in the amount of $47,700, which included the cabin on Lake Roesiger from the plaintiff's mother's estate and the value of the separate property of the plaintiff was found to be approximately $68,000.
The trial court divided the property of the parties as follows:
AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF
(a) A-frame cabin, building lot and second
cabin on Lake Roesigner__Net Value $15,000.00
(b) Household furnishings in the cabin on
Lake Roesiger ............................ 1,000.00
(c) Seller's interest in real estate contract
on property in Seattle--Net
Value .................................... 5,100.00
(d) Cabin and waterfront lot on Lake
Roesiger (Inherited from mother) ......... 16,500.00
(e) 3 Life insurance policies on
plaintiff's life_______Net Value 91.87
(f)(g) Savings and checking accounts ........... 10.00
(h) Plaintiff's tools .......................... (Not valued)
(i) Seascouter sailboat and canoe .............. (Not valued)
(j) 1966 Lincoln ............................... 2,000.00
(k) Carved ivory artifacts ..................... 750.00
(l) Stocks________________Net Value 65,000.00
(m)-(o) Miscellaneous personal effects ......... (Not valued)
-------------
TOTAL $105,451.87
AWARDED TO THE DEFENDANT
(a) Miscellaneous household goods and
furnishings in storage_______Cost $ 5,000.00
(b) Television at cabin ........................ (Not valued)
(c) 1969 Ford Mustang (A gift to the
defendant from plaintiff) ................ 2,000.00
(d) Jewelry and personal effects of
defendant ................................ 3,100.00
(e) Life insurance policy on
defendant's life______Net Value 16.11
------------
TOTAL $10,116.11
In addition, the defendant was awarded
a judgment against the plaintiff in the
amount of $50,000, together with interest
thereon at the rate of 7 per cent per
annum, payable at the rate of $450 or
more per month, secured by a lien in said
amount on all of the real properties
awarded the plaintiff.
By order dated June 30, 1971, the plaintiff was further ordered to pay the defendant additional attorney's fees and costs pending appeal in the amount of $750.
The plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff first assigns error to the order of the trial court requiring him to pay $200 per month child support until the minor child is 21 years of age, together with four years of college expenses. He cites RCW 26.08.110, which gives the court the authority, in divorce actions, to make provisions for the support and education of the Minor children of the marriage. The plaintiff claims that the age of majority was lowered to 18 years by Laws of 1971, Ex. Ses., ch. 292, § 1, p. 1603 (RCW 26.28.010 as amended), which reads:
Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all persons shall be deemed and taken to be of full age for all purposes at the age of eighteen years.
The plaintiff contends that the part of the decree in this case which provided for support and college expenses after the minor child has reached the age of 18 years is invalid. We disagree with this contention, except as to a partial limitation on the college expenses.
It is the rule in this state that a legislative enactment is presumed to apply prospectively only, and will not be held to apply retrospectively unless such legislative intent is clearly expressed or to be implied. Anderson v. Seattle, 78 Wash.2d 201, 471 [498 P.2d 319] P.2d 87 (1970); Bodine v. Department of Labor & Indus., 29 Wash.2d 879, 190 P.2d 89 (1948); Lynch v. Department of Labor & Indus., 19 Wash.2d 802, 145 P.2d 265 (1944); and cases cited therein. Further, the legislature is without power to set aside, annul, or change the liability upon a judgment affecting solely the rights of private parties by the enactment of a general law. Keen v. Goodwin,28 Wash.2d 332, 182 P.2d 697 (1947); Springstun v. Springstun, 131 Wash. 109, 229 P. 14 (1924). The decree of divorce and judgment in this case were entered on April 6, 1971. On that date, the age of majority was 21 years as defined under RCW 26.28.010. Laws of 1971, Ex.Ses., ch. 292, § 1, p. 1603, which amended RCW 26.28.010 and lowered the age of majority to 18 years for purposes applicable to that statute, did not become effective until August 9, 1971, 4 months after the judgment was entered in this case. We find nothing in the new legislation to indicate that it is intended to have retroactive application.
We hold that Laws of 1971, Ex. Ses., ch. 292, § 1, p. 1603, is not retroactive and does not apply to judgments entered in divorce decrees prior to August 9, 1971, the effective date of the enactment. Therefore, it was entirely within the authority of the trial court in this case to make provisions for the support and education of the child of the parties until the child reached the age of 21 years. Whether the legislation lowering the age of majority to 18 years applies, under RCW 26.08.110, to support and education provisions in divorce decrees entered subsequent to August 9, 1971, is not properly before us at this time since the rights of the parties to this action are not affected thereby. We therefore do not decide that question.
The plaintiff contends, however, that in any event the trial court erred in directing that he provide for the child's college expenses beyond the age of 21 years. This is conceded by the defendant. The law is clear that a divorce court is without jurisdiction to direct a parent to provide for support and education after the child attains majority. RCW 26.08.110. Sutherland v. Sutherland, 77 Wash.2d 6, 459 P.2d 397 (1969); Ditmar v. Ditmar, 48 Wash.2d 373, 293 P.2d 759 (1956); Van Tinker v. Van Tinker, 38 Wash.2d 390, 229 P.2d 333 (1951); Herzog v. Herzog, 23 Wash.2d 382, 161 P.2d 142 (19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washburn v. Washburn
...powers. Its disposition will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. See Baker v. Baker, 80 Wash.2d 736, 747, 498 P.2d 315 (1972); In re Marriage of Glorfield, 27 Wash.App. 358, 360, 617 P.2d 1051, review denied, 94 Wash.2d 1025 (1980); In re Marriage o......
-
White v. White
...denied, 121 Wash.2d 1033, 856 P.2d 383 (1993). 7. RCW 26.09.080; Konzen, 103 Wash.2d at 477-78, 693 P.2d 97; Baker v. Baker, 80 Wash.2d 736, 746-47, 498 P.2d 315 (1972); Blood v. Blood, 69 Wash.2d 680, 682, 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); see also Brewer, 137 Wash.2d at 766, 976 P.2d 102 ("Characteri......
-
Marriage of Olivares, Matter of
...the property as either community or separate. Blood v. Blood, 69 Wash.2d 680, 682, 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Baker v. Baker, 80 Wash.2d 736, 745, 498 P.2d 315 (1972); In re Marriage of Hadley, 88 Wash.2d 649, 656, 565 P.2d 790 (1977); In re Marriage of DeHollander, 53 Wash.App. 695, 700, 770 P.......
-
Marriage of Hadley, In re
...to be paid at $4,000 per month for 10 years. Mr. Hadley received all other property in the estate. our judgment. Baker v. Baker, 80 Wash.2d 736, 746, 498 P.2d 315 (1972). Mr. Hadley does not contend that Mrs. Hadley is entitled to any less than she received; rather, he argues, the decree is......
-
§3.4 Right of Reimbursement: The Equitable Lien
...and remains so fixed unless changed by deed, by due process of law, or by the working of some form of estoppel. Accord Baker v. Baker, 80 Wn.2d 736, 498 P.2d 315 (1972); Leroux v. Knoll, 28 Wn.2d 964, 184 P.2d 564 (1947); In re Pughs Estate, 18 Wn.2d 501, 139 P.2d 698 (1943); Strand v. Peko......
-
Table of Cases
...60, 52 P.3d 22 (2002): 4.17, 5.1(4) Bakenhus v. Cityof Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 296 P.2d 536 (1956): 3.2(5)(a), 3.5(2)(c) Baker v. Baker,80 Wn.2d 736, 498 P.2d 315 (1972): 3.3(2), 3.4(1)(a), 3.4(1)(d), 5.6(5) Bakke v.Columbia Valley Lumber Co., 49 Wn.2d 165, 298 P.2d 849 (1956): 4.7 Balkema v......
-
§5.6 Suspension and Dissolution of the Marriage or Theregistered Domestic Partnership By The Parties
...the parties respective contributions to property. Friedlander v. Friedlander, 80 Wn.2d 293, 305-06, 494 P.2d 208 (1972); Baker v. Baker, 80 Wn.2d 736, 498 P.2d 315 (1972). Corporate business factors in a family corporation may also be considered in making an equitable division of property. ......
-
§3.3 Tracing and Commingling; Earnings and Business Profits
...there may be a right of reimbursement in respect of the improvements for the subsequent contribution, see §3.4, below). Baker v. Baker, 80 Wn.2d 736, 498 P.2d 315 Andrews v. Andrews, 116 Wash. 513, 199 P. 981 (1921). Action to establish and enforce an oral agreement to devise. The father, i......