Marriage of Pea, In re
| Decision Date | 07 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2240-II,2240-II |
| Citation | 566 P.2d 212,17 Wn.App. 728 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE of Gerald D. PEA, Respondent, and Choon Ja Pea, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Richard Goodwin, Ingram, Zelasko & Goodwin, Aberdeen, for appellant.
James E. Duree, Westport, for respondent.
This is an appeal from certain provisions of a decree of marriage dissolution. Appellant, Choon Ja Pea, contends (1) that the trial court made an inequitable division of the property of the parties, and (2) abused its discretion in a maintenance order and attorney's fee award. We are convinced there is too great a disparity in the award and in the condition in which the parties will be left for the award to be equitable under RCW 26.09.080. Accordingly we reverse on that issue.
The parties were married in Korea in 1961. Appellant is age 34, is of Korean nationality, has a limited education, and has difficulty reading and speaking English. In May, 1973, while Gerald Pea was serving with the United States Coast Guard in Bangkok, Thailand, the parties separated. Aside from approximately $8,500 in cash and United States Savings Bonds and a modest amount of furnishings, the only other asset of the parties at the time of the separation was Gerald Pea's military pension. At the time of the separation, appellant took the $8,500 and by the time of trial had expended virtually all of it; $1,700 was used for purchase of an automobile.
After the separation and for the next 22 months, appellant resided in Colorado, where she worked as a waitress, an oyster sheller, and a seamstress. Her income was $700 in 1973 and $2,800 in 1974. During this period of separation, prior to the divorce, she also received a monthly allotment of $271; of that sum the government provided $150 "quarters allowance" and her husband provided $121. Just prior to trial, appellant was completing training as a beautician and planned to take an examination for license as a beautician, which the trial court found would allow her an estimated monthly income of $250.
Respondent, Gerald Pea, age 37, is a qualified telephone technician in the Coast Guard. He intended to complete his present enlistment in October, 1978. In September, 1978 (some 2 years and 10 months from the date of trial) he would qualify for a 20-year military retirement pension if he elects to retire at that time. The pension would pay $362.25 1 per month if he retires at the same pay rate he was receiving at the time of hearing. Respondent's life expectancy at age 37 was 34.88, and at age 40 (age at retirement) is 32.18 years. Respondent also purchased an automobile after the separation. His monthly gross earnings at the time of trial were approximately $724.50, subject to income and Social Security taxes. No evidence was offered as to the present worth of respondent's pension. The parties were married for 13 years, during which the pension rights were being earned.
The trial court found and concluded that one-half the sum of $8,500 taken by appellant at the time of separation should offset any rights she might have in the military pension.
This conclusion is clearly erroneous for two reasons. First, the funds were not in existence at the time of trial, and there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the monies taken by appellant were used for other than necessary living expenses. The separation occurred in Thailand, and appellant had to bear costs of traveling to Colorado. The $271 allotment furnished a below-poverty level of existence. Her own earnings were minimal and she had to pay for training as a beautician. During the same period respondent's overseas pay was $1,000 per month, and his living expenses were provided for by the government.
Second, even were it proper for the court to consider this depleted fund as an asset, there is a patent disparity, not only in the award, but in the economic circumstances in which the parties were left by the decree. See Edwards v. Edwards, 74 Wash.2d 286, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deering v. Deering
...different and that, where it becomes too speculative, the trial court should use a different method of valuation. In re Marriage of Pea, 17 Wash.App. 728, 566 P.2d 212 (1977); Robbins v. Robbins, 463 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.1971); In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 5......
-
Nisos v. Nisos
...difficult and that, where it becomes too speculative, the trial court should use a different method of valuation. In re Marriage of Pea, 17 Wash.App. 728, 566 P.2d 212 (1977); Robbins v. Robbins, 463 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.1971); In Re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal.Reptr. 633, 544 P.2d ......
-
Bloomer v. Bloomer
...difficult and that, where it becomes too speculative, the trial court should use a different method of valuation. In re Marriage of Pea, 17 Wash.App. 728, 566 P.2d 212 (1977); Robbins v. Robbins, 463 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.1971); In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 5......
-
In re Marriage of Hamond
... ... time of dissolution, pension benefits, as deferred ... compensation, constitute property rights subject to division ... by the court. In re Marriage of Chavez, 80 Wn.App ... 432, 436, 909 P.2d 314 (1996); In re Marriage of ... Pea, 17 Wn.App. 728, 731, 566 P.2d 212 (1977) ... Before ... dividing property, the court must determine the correct ... character and status of the property as community or ... separate. Baker v. Baker, 80 Wn.2d 736, 745, 498 ... P.2d 315 (1972); In re Marriage ... ...
-
§ 7.10 Pensions
...202 Cal. Rptr. 716 (1984). North Dakota: Lentz v. Lentz, 353 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1984). Washington: In re Marriage of Pea, 7 Wash. App. 728, 566 P.2d 212 (1977). [546] See Madrid v. Madrid, 101 N.M. 504, 684 P.2d 1169 (N.M. App. 1984). See also, Bliss v. Bliss, 583 A.2d 208 (Me. 1990). Texas l......
-
§3.2 Particular Assets
...P.2d 314, review denied, 129 Wn.2d 1016 (1996); Bulicek v. Bulicek, 59 Wn.App. 630, 638-39, 800 P.2d 394 (1990); In re Marriage of Pea, 17 Wn.App. 728, 731, 566 P.2d 212 (1977). Some courts go so far as to say that this is the tcal formula used. E.g., In re Marriage of Harris, 107 Wn.App. 5......
-
Table of Cases
...4.11, 4.11(1), 4.11(3), 5.5, 7.4(4), 7.4(7), 7.4(12) Payne v. Payne,82 Wn.2d 573, 512 P.2d 736 (1973): 3.2(5)(b) Pea, In reMarriage of, 17 Wn.App. 728, 566 P.2d 212 (1977): 3.2(5)(a) Pearson-Maines,In re Marriage of, 70 Wn.App. 860, 855 P.2d 1210 (1993): 3.1, 3.1(4), 3.1(5), 3.3, 3.4(1)(b),......