Glorfield v. Glorfield, 3410-III-1

• Decision Date: 02 October 1980
• Docket Number: No. 3410-III-1,3410-III-1
• Citation: 617 P.2d 1051,27 Wn.App. 358
• Parties: In re the Marriage of Ben J. GLORFIELD, Respondent, v. Gloria G. GLORFIELD, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 358

27 Wn.App. 358

617 P.2d 1051

In re the Marriage of Ben J. GLORFIELD, Respondent, v. Gloria G. GLORFIELD, Appellant.

No. 3410-III-1.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Four.

Oct. 2, 1980.

Reconsideration Denied Oct. 20, 1980.

Carl Maxey, Fredrickson, Maxey, Bell & Stiley, Spokane, for appellant.

Wallis W. Friel, Irwin, Friel & Myklebust, Pullman, for respondent.

GREEN, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a property distribution in a dissolution decree. Gloria Glorfield assigns error to the trial court's (1) division of the parties' property, and (2) deducting from the property distributed to her the sum of $13,000 received during the parties' separation. We affirm.

Ben and Gloria Glorfield were married in 1948, at the ages of 20 and 16, respectively. They separated in October 1977, and this action to dissolve the marriage was commenced February 7, 1978.

During the marriage the parties acquired substantial interests in farmland. Most of the land was owned and farmed jointly with Mr. Glorfield's brother and sisters. An undivided one-half interest in some of the property was owned by Gale Farms, Inc., which was wholly owned by the Glorfields. Mr. and Mrs. Glorfield own a one-fifth interest in Glorfield Farms, a limited partnership. This partnership was formed by Mr. Glorfield, his brother and sisters and their respective spouses for the purpose of purchasing land from Mr. Glorfield's father. ¹ The court determined that all of this property was owned by the community.

The court found that the property owned by Gale Farms, Inc., and Glorfield Farms was acquired partly by purchase, partly through Mr. Glorfield's inheritance prior to marriage, and partly by gift from Mr. Glorfield's father through sales which were substantially below fair market value. The inherited and gifted interests in the farmland, valued at $155,260, was set aside to Mr. Glorfield. The remaining property was divided substantially in half: $373,729 to Mr. Glorfield and $403,729 to Mrs. Glorfield. As a result of the court's division, Mr. Glorfield received all of the interest in the farmland, including the family home.

Mrs. Glorfield contends the court abused its discretion by distributing all of the farmland interests to Mr. Glorfield. She argues that since all the interests in the land were determined to belong to the community, the court erred in not awarding her a portion of the land determined to be a gift valued at $155,260, which was set aside to Mr. Glorfield. We find no abuse.

It is well settled that a court has wide discretion when distributing property in a dissolution proceeding, and the disposition will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Wilder v. Wilder, 85 Wash.2d 364, 366, 534 P.2d 1355 (1975); In re Marriage of Campbell, 22 Wash.App. 560, 562, 589 P.2d 1244 (1978). RCW 26.09.080 requires the court to consider the nature and extent of community and separate property, and the economic circumstances of each spouse at the time of distribution. This statute has been consistently interpreted not to establish inflexible rules, but to

provide flexible guidelines within which the courts could adjust and reconcile such considerations, inter alia, as the health and age of the parties, their prospects for future earnings, their foreseeable future acquisitions and obligations, and whether the property to be divided should be attributed to the inheritance or efforts of one or the other, or both.

In re Marriage of Kittleson, 21 Wash.App. 344, 351-52, 585 P.2d 167, 172 (1978). The community or separate status of property is not controlling and the essential consideration is not whether a property distribution is equal, but whether it is just and equitable. Friedlander v. Friedlander, 80 Wash.2d 293, 305, 494 P.2d 208 (1972); In re Marriage of Kittleson, supra, 21 Wash.App. at 346, 585 P.2d 167; In re Marriage of Dalthorp, 23 Wash.App. 904, 911, 598 P.2d 788 (1979). In dividing property, the court may consider its source and date of acquisition. DeRuwe v. DeRuwe, 72 Wash.2d 404, 408, 433 P.2d 209 (1967).

Here, the evidence shows that Mr. Glorfield and his brother and sisters participated in acquiring and maintaining the farming operation. Mr. Glorfield began farming in 1946 with his brother by leasing equipment and farmland from his father. Later, these two brothers and their three sisters purchased land from their father at substantially below fair market value. The court found the net worth of the parties was due primarily to acquisitions from Mr. Glorfield's father. Much of the land was found to be a gift to Mr. Glorfield by his father and Mrs. Glorfield's name was included on the deeds as a courtesy and for gift tax reasons. In dividing the property, the court properly considered the...