Folsom v. Folsom
| Decision Date | 02 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | 15164. |
| Citation | 106 Wash. 315,179 P. 847 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | FOLSOM v. FOLSOM. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Clay Allen, Judge.
Action for divorce by Florence Mr. Folsom against George F. Folsom. From the decree, which granted alimony, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Geo. H Walker and Robert B. Walkinshaw, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Kerr & McCord, of Seattle, for respondent.
The main question presented by this appeal is the adequacy of the alimony granted by the trial court. Briefly summarized, the property consisted, as to its separate character, of certain English railroad securities, possessed by Mrs. Folsom adjudged by the trial court to be of the value of $5,000, and 228 shares of the Novelty Mill Company's stock, valued by the court at $34,200, owned by George F. Folsom. All the rest, residue, and remainder of the property was decreed by the trial court to be community property, consisting of the following:
1. Summer home located in Kitsap county
$ 1,500 00
2. British Columbia land, 320 acres, unimproved
960 00
3. Grant Co., Washington, 160 acres, unimproved
.........
800 00
4. Ten-room residence, Seattle, Wash.........
8,000 00
5. Tidelands, Seattle, Wash .................
2,000 00
6. West Seattle lots ........................
1,000 00
7. Two Central Bldg. bonds ....................
200 00
8. Liberty bonds ..............................
300 00
9. War savings stamps .........................
100 00
10. Household furniture, life insurance,
etc..............
3,500 00
----------
Total ..................................
$17,560 00
The liabilities against the real property, amounting to $12,937.16, were directed to be assumed by the respondent. The foregoing valuations are those determined by the trial court. We may add that quantities of mining and corporation stock of undetermined value were found by the court to be community property. Of the foregoing community property the appellant was awarded the following: The summer home in Kitsap county; the ten-room house in Seattle; the West Seattle lots; the two Central Building bonds; the war savings stamps and the Liberty bonds; $1,500 worth of household furniture; the insurance policy (paid-up value $1,285); and approximately one-half of the mining and corporation stock of unknown value--all of the total value of $16,835. In addition to this the respondent was ordered to pay appellant $600 as attorney's fees; the costs of the suit; that respondent shall pay the appellant $100 a month alimony for three years following the entry of the decree, and $50 per month for a second period of three years immediately succeeding the first. The appellant prays that the decree be modified to allow her $150 per month alimony for life. The respondent by cross-appeal asks that the appellant be allowed no alimony whatever, and that the attorney's fee allowed her be reduced one-half. The decree further allowed the appellant the whole of the shares of the English railroad securities and the respondent the whole of the shares of the Novelty Mill Company's stock, on the theory that both of these items are the separate and individual property of the parties.
Appellant hopes to obtain her relief here by attacking the theory of the trial court as to the status of the respondent's Novelty Mill stock, alleging that it is really community, and not separate, property. We do not feel that this position is very seriously maintained by counsel for appellant; for the testimony is brief, but definite and uncontradicted, that this stock was the property of the respondent at the time of the marriage. Appellant seems to imply that the stock was not fully paid for, though standing in respondent's name, and that payments were made thereon by subsequent earnings really belonging to the community. This would seem to be answered by the undisputed fact that the mill stock had paid high dividends uninterruptedly, and that there is no bookkeeping in the record before us to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Binge's Estate
... ... its acquisition. Katterhagen v. Meister, 75 Wash ... 112, 134 P. 673; Folsom v. Folsom, 106 Wash. 315, ... 179 P. 847. When the separate status of property is once ... established, the presumption continues until ... ...
-
Marriage of Kittleson, In re, 5407-I
...is not necessarily controlling in the distribution of property under a divorce decree, Patrick v. Patrick, supra; Folsom v. Folsom, 106 Wash. 315, 179 P. 847 (1919), and the essential consideration is whether the final division of property is fair, just and equitable under all the circumsta......
-
In re Witte's Estate
... ... determined as of the date of its acquisition. Katterhagen ... v. Meister, 75 Wash. 112, 134 P. 673; Folsom v ... Folsom, 106 Wash. 315, 179 P. 847; In re Brown's ... Estate, 124 Wash. 273, 214 P. 10; In re ... Woodburn's Estate, 190 ... ...
-
Worthington v. Worthington
...is not necessarily controlling. Huff v. Huff, 68 Wash.2d 501, 413 P.2d 818 (1966); Wolfisberg v. Wolfisberg, supra; Folsom v. Folsom, 106 Wash. 315, 179 P. 847 (1919). In Webster v. Webster, 2 Wash. 417, 419, 26 P. 864 (1891), we (I)t is an equitable division of the property rights of the p......
-
§3.1 General Considerations: Statutory Framework
...used to repay the debt were separate property because the debt was satisfied out of the rents, issues and profits. In Folsom v. Folsom, 106 Wash. 315, 179 P. 847 (1919), the husband purchased shares of stock prior to marriage and may have made some payments on them thereafter. From proof th......
-
Table of Cases
...Fletcher v.Porter, 177 Wash. 560, 33 P.2d 109 (1934): 6.5(7) Floding v.Denholm, 40 Wash. 463, 82 P. 738 (1905): 6.2(1) Folsom v.Folsom, 106 Wash. 315, 179 P. 847 (1919): 3.1(3), 3.3(1) Foran, In reMarriage of, 67 Wn.App. 242, 834 P.2d 1081 (1992): 5.1(1) Ford, In reEstate of, 31 Wn.App. 136......
-
§3.3 Tracing and Commingling; Earnings and Business Profits
...to have presumed that the debt was paid out of the separate rents, issues, and profits of the capital investment). In Folsom v. Folsom, 106 Wash. 315, 179 P. 847 (1919), the husband bought shares of stock prior to marriage and made some payments on the purchase price thereafter. The dividen......