Root v. Root, 36810
| Decision Date | 30 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36810,36810 |
| Citation | 64 Wn.2d 360,391 P.2d 962 |
| Parties | Marjorie M. ROOT, Appellant, v. Donald Sherwood ROOT, Respondent. . Department 1 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Hall & Atwood, Seattle, for appellant.
Jonson & Jonson, Seattle, for respondent.
Marjorie M. Root instituted this action for divorce; Donald S. Root cross-complained. The court granted a divorce to both. The parties were married in Seattle on January 30, 1937. The one child of the marriage is now over 21 years of age and is self-supporting. In this appeal the basic issue, raised by the wife, is whether the division and settlement made by the trial court as to certain community property is a fair and equitable one. We think it is, for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
A mutually agreeable distribution was effected as to various items of personal property, and as to cash and bank accounts which were divided as follows: To Donald S. Root, $6,980.05; to Marjorie M. Root, $4,529.44. In this appeal no question is raised as to these items.
The community property of the parties included vendor interests or equities in four real estate contracts. The parties stipulated, and the trial court found that the total market or cash value of these vendorcontract equities was $26,100. The property settlement, as decreed by the trial court, gave the four contracts (vendor interests or equities) to the husband, and awarded the wife the sum of $26,000, secured by liens on the contracts awarded to the husband. The trial court made the $26,000 award to the wife payable by the husband over a period of approximately ten years at the rate of $300 per month for the first year, and $200 per month thereafter.
In this appeal the appellant wife makes two contentions: First, that awarding the four contract equities to the husband results in a division of property in a value ratio of about two thirds to him and one third to her, and, consequently, it is unfair and inequitable as to her; and second, that she should be allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the declining balance, as monthly payments are made on the $26,000 awarded to her.
We have carefully examined the record and the memorandum decision of the trial judge. We are convinced that he exercised excellent judgment and sound judicial discretion in working out the property division and settlement, as indicated hereinbefore. The award to the wife on a monthly installment basis for ten years will afford her considerable protection and security against her own impulsive and improvident actions as to which the record shows she is susceptible.
It is true that, if the husband can hold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pollock v. Pollock
...and division of property except where there has been a manifest abuse of discretion in one particular or another (Root v. Root, 64 Wash.2d 360, 391 P.2d 962 (1964)), we will, if shown some abuse of discretion, correct the decree to ameliorate or remove if possible the inequities fostered by......
-
Lackey v. Lackey
...he contends that the last 52 years of Washington case law on the issue conflicts with the Supreme Court's decisions in Root v. Root, 64 Wn.2d 360, 363, 391 P.2d 962 (1964) and Kosanke v. Kosanke, 30 Wn.2d 523, 535, 192 P.2d 337 (1948), where the trial courts imposed no interest on secured m......
-
In re Marriage of Lackey
...(1948), where the trial courts imposed no interest on secured monetary judgments in dissolution actions. It is true that in both Kosanke and Root our Supreme Court upheld the courts' decisions to not impose any interest on the secured judgments. But nothing in the holdings suggests those de......
-
Weaver v. Weaver
...this court in substituting its judgment for that of the trial court in connection with the property division decreed. Root v. Root, 64 Wash.2d 360, 391 P.2d 962 (1964); Robuck v. Robuck, 62 Wash.2d 917, 385 P.2d 50 (1963); Nelson v. Nelson, 61 Wash.2d 608, 379 P.2d 717 (1963); Thompson v. T......