Dickison v. Dickison
| Decision Date | 04 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 37106,37106 |
| Citation | 399 P.2d 5,65 Wn.2d 585 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Janet DICKISON, Appellant, v. C. Norman DICKISON, Jr., Respondent. |
Casey & Pruzan, Carl Pruzan, Seattle, for appellant.
Jordan & Adair, Llewellyn S. Jordan, Seattle, for respondent.
*
This is an appeal by plaintiff wife of that portion of the decree of divorce relating to property division, alimony, attorneys' fees and costs. Appellant contends that the trial court failed to make a just and equitable distribution of the property, and also failed to award her an adequate sum as alimony and attorneys' fees and costs.
The trial court granted a decree of divorce to appellant on its finding that
'The defendant has been guilty of cruel treatment of and toward the plaintiff and has inflicted personal indignities upon her rendering her life burdensome in that the defendant has sought the personal companionship and gratification with other women not the plaintiff. * * *'
The parties were married September 8, 1950, and have two children who, at the time of the trial, were 4 and 9 years of age. Appellant was awarded the custody of the children, alimony in the sum of $100 a month for 3 years, support money in the sum of $100 for the older child and $75 a month for the younger child, attorneys' fees in the sum of $750 and $326.85 costs, and also was awarded her separate property and part of the community property.
The trial court found that the appellant owned as her separate property a savings account in the sum of $2,450 and a seller's equity in a real estate contract, the balance of which was $5,700, payable $25 a month, and that the community owned net assets valued at $65,275. After hearing conflicting testimony from expert witnesses, the trial court fixed the values of the several pieces of real property owned by the community or in which the community had an interest, and divided the community property as follows:
The husband was awarded the community interest in Meydenbelle, Inc., valued at $25,000. He was awarded other Bellevue property valued at $4,000. He was awarded another tract of property designated the 'Carnation property' valued at $18,000. He was awarded other miscellaneous property, less certain liabilities, making a total award of $43,595.
The wife was awarded net community assets of $21,680, including the community home valued at $27,000, which was subject to a $6,900 mortgage. She was awarded the furniture, an automobile and other miscellaneous property. She was required to pay $970 in debts which had been incurred by her. In addition, the trial court awarded appellant her separate property of $8,150. No basis was given by the trial court for awarding appellant substantially less of the community property than was awarded to the husband.
RCW 26.08.110 empowers the court to make such disposition of the property, whether it be community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable.
While, as pointed out in Robuck v. Robuck, 62 Wash.2d917, 385 P.2d 50, the law does not impel an equal or exact division of the community property, we agree with appellant that, under the evidence, it was a manifest abuse of discretion to award the respondent two-thirds of the community assets. Wills v. Wills, 50 Wash.2d 439, 312 P.2d 661. See, also, Ovens v. Ovens, 61 Wash.2d 6, 376 P.2d 839.
The trial court found the Carnation property to be of the value of $18,000. This property consists of 40 acres of unimproved land in King County. There is expert testimony in the record to support the finding. Respondent was reluctant to furnish any details concerning this property. At first he did not disclose ownership of it in his deposition. It took a searching cross-examination by appellant's counsel to get respondent to reveal that this community owned this property.
Respondent's expert testified the land would be worth only $500, due to a title defect and because it was landlocked and would require an easement, if the property were improved. Respondent, himself, also set the value at $500, and contends that the trial court set the value too high.
We feel that the appellant's proposal that she be awarded the Carnation property will result in an equitable division of the property in this case. If respondent's figures are accepted as to the value of this property, then this will still be short of an equal division of the property. Accepting the court's valuation of $18,000 will result in a more equitable distribution of the community property.
Appellant also assigns as error the trial court's finding of the value of other Bellevue property at $4,000. She contends that it should have been valued at $6,667. Respondent was also awarded an insurance policy on his life which he estimates had a cash surrender value of about $1,500. This figure was not included in computing his portion of the community property. The award of the Carnation property to appellant compensates for the inadequate award of the decree, and a consideration of these assignments are not necessary.
Meydenbelle, Inc., owns the purchaser's interest in several parcels of real estate in Bellevue totaling 200,000 square feet. This was valued at 50 cents a square foot, or $100,000.
Respondent contends that the property division was not inequitable because the projected community interest in the Meydenbelle corporation of 25.75 per cent, valued at $25,000, was too high. Respondent's expert testified that the total holdings of Meydenbelle, Inc., were worth $22,000 to $26,000. Respondent, himself, testified the holdings were worth less than $22,000.
The evidence supports the trial court's finding on the value of this community interest. While the finding refers to the community's owning a '14.75 stock interest,' when the sum of $1,454.81 is paid, along with other small amounts owed by other investors, the community will own 25.75 per cent interest. The trial court accepted the values of appellant's appraiser, Mr. Schenkar, who was familiar with the property values in Bellevue.
The contention of respondent is considerably weakened by a letter he wrote to the city of Bellevue concerning the Meydenbelle property. This letter set the value at $150,000 to $200,000, and offered to sell at $150,000 to the community for a civic center. He based this offer upon what he called 'bona fide appraisals made for the purposes of financing our proposed facilities.'
In conclusion, on this aspect of the appeal, w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pollock v. Pollock
...correct the decree to ameliorate or remove if possible the inequities fostered by it. Hogberg v. Hogberg, supra; Dickison v. Dickison, 65 Wash.2d 585, 399 P.2d 5 (1965); Stacy v. Stacy, 72 Wash.2d at 408--409, 433 P.2d at 212. In making the property division, the court must bear in mind the......
-
Norton v. Norton
...221 Ga. 176, 144 S.E.2d 172, and the wife's obligations and expenses have been frequently considered on appeal, e.g., Dickison v. Dickison, 65 Wash.2d 585, 399 P.2d 5; Reese v. Reese, 190 Cal.App.2d 181, 11 Cal.Rptr. 590. Plaintiff's employment will normally create an added expense in trans......
-
Worthington v. Worthington
...Hewitt v. Hewitt, 66 Wash.2d 923, 400 P.2d 771 (1965); Hogberg v. Hogberg, 64 Wash.2d 617, 393 P.2d 291 (1964); Dickison v. Dickison, 65 Wash.2d 585, 399 P.2d 5 (1965); Blood v. Blood, 69 Wash.2d 680, 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Graham v. Graham, 38 Wash.2d 796, 232 P.2d 100 (1951). The valuation......
-
Baker v. Baker
...to fair, reasonable, and equitable disposition by the court. Morris v. Morris, 69 Wash.2d 506, 419 P.2d 129 (1966); Dickison v. Dickison, 65 Wash.2d 585, 399 P.2d 5 (1965). Further, we have consistently held that the trial court is given a wide discretion in making the property division in ......