Clark v. Clark

• Decision Date: 05 November 1948
• Docket Number: 30721.
• Parties: CLARK v. CLARK.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

199 P.2d 67

31 Wn.2d 785

CLARK v. CLARK.

No. 30721.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 5, 1948

Department 2

Action for divorce by Margaret Clark against B. L. Clark. From portion of the interlocutory judgment relating to the division of property, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Dolph Barnett, Judge.

Tonkoff & Holst, of Yakima, for appellant.

Lloyd L. Wiehl, of Yakima, for respondent.

SIMPSON Justice.

This appeal involves the disposition of property made by the superior court in an interlocutory order of divorce. The only assignment of error made by appellant is that the court erred in the disposition of plaintiff's and defendant's property.

Appellant and respondent were married on or about October 21, 1944. At the time of the trial, appellant was fifty-two years of age, and respondent was seventy-two years old. There were no children born as the result of the marriage. Just prior to her marriage, appellant had purchased property in Yakima for five thousand three hundred dollars fifteen hundred dollars of which had been paid at the time the contract was entered into, and she had made other payments which gave her a total investment in the property of two thousand six hundred and three dollars. After their marriage the parties engaged in many real estate deals. Respondent was a realtor and cared for the real estate transactions from his office.

The total value of all properties owned by the parties at the time of the trial was $20,301.20. Their outstanding current liabilities amounted to $1,411.39. Appellant was given all of her personal clothing and effects, the home at 402 N. 8th street in the city of Yakima, and another piece of property in that city, the latter property being subject to a loan of $3,040.98. She was allowed all her household goods and a new Buick automobile. The respondent was given his personal clothing and effects, a Chevrolet automobile, four bounds of the face value of two hundred twenty-five dollars, and several pieces of real estate in Yakima county, some of which were encumbered. The evidence shows that the total award to appellant amounted to $11,775.71, from which she would be required to pay current debts in the amount of $1,411.39 leaving her a net award of $10,364.32. The total award to respondent amounted to $8,525.49, from which he was compelled to pay a balance of two hundred sixty dollars attorneys fees and costs to appellant's attorney, and the sum of five hundred dollars to his own attorney, together with the costs of the divorce action.

Appellant contends that much of the property was purchased with appellant's separate funds, or the increment thereof, and that she should therefore have a greater portion of the property than that given by the trial court. The evidence shows, however, that she had only a small interest in one piece of property at the time she married respondent, that both parties worked most of the time after their marriage, and that all of their income was devoted to either paying off debts owed on some of the property including that owned by appellant when they were married, and in purchasing new property, and in maintaining the household.

No good purpose would be served by setting out in this opinion all of the details relative to the controversy existing between the appellant and respondent...