Shaffer v. Shaffer, 32553
| Citation | 262 P.2d 763,43 Wn.2d 629 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 32553,32553 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | SHAFFER, v. SHAFFER. |
Lee Olwell, Seattle, for appellant.
Robert F. Sandall, Seattle, for respondent.
Defendant has appealed in this divorce action. She challenges the award of a certain apartment house and its furnishings to plaintiff and defendant as 'joint owners or tenants in common.' This property is the principal asset of the parties, and is referred to as the Aloha street property. Apparently, it was the separate property of defendant and plaintiff claimed to have made improvements on it since their marriage. The parties had other assets, some of which the court awarded to each of them. The findings of fact are silent regarding the value of any of the property.
Divorce is a statutory proceeding. The section pertinent in this case reads in part as follows:
RCW 26.08.110, cf. Rem.Supp.1949, § 997-11, Laws of 1949, chapter 215, § 11, p. 701.
Similar language has been in the divorce statutes of this state for many years. Rem.Supp.1947, § 988, Laws of 1947, chapter 161, § 1, p. 731, Rem.Rev.Stat. § 989, Laws of 1891, chapter 26, § 5, p. 43. It establishes the duty of the trial court to dispose of all of the property of the parties which is brought to its attention in the trial of a divorce case. Biehn v. Lyon, 1948, 29 Wash.2d 750, 756, 189 P.2d 482, and cases cited. See Merkel v. Merkel, 1951, 39 Wash.2d 102, 114, 234 P.2d 857.
The trial court has a wide discretion in this regard, but the result of the decree in the case at bar is to leave the Aloha street property the same as if it were community property of the parties which had not been before the court for disposition. They become tenants in common of any community property not disposed of by the decree. Olsen v. Roberts, Wash.1953, 259 P.2d 418, and cases cited. This was not a performance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papin v. Papin
...and finally determined in the decree which divorces them," so that the prospect of future litigation is less likely. Shaffer v. Shaffer , 262 P.2d 763, 764 (Wash. 1953). Chavez , 146 Idaho at 220, 192 P.3d at 1044. "Disposition of property—including valuation and division—is a question of d......
-
Marriage of Hadley, In re
...the character of property as community or separate. See also Blood v. Blood, 69 Wash.2d 680, 419 P.2d 1006 (1966); Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wash.2d 629, 262 P.2d 763 (1953). The trial court found, and it is not challenged, that the assets were traced by a certified public accountant prior to ......
-
Marriage of Kittleson, In re, 5407-I
...680, 419 P.2d 1006 (1966), and to dispose of all of the property of the parties which is brought to its attention. Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wash.2d 629, 262 P.2d 763 (1953); Biehn v. Lyon, 29 Wash.2d 750, 189 P.2d 482 (1948); Beam v. Beam, 18 Wash.App. 444, 569 P.2d 719 (1977); DeRevere v. De......
-
Marriage of Sedlock, Matter of
...We disagree. Marcia is correct that the court has a duty to dispose of all the property of the parties before it, Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wash.2d 629, 630, 262 P.2d 763 (1953), and the parties have a right to have their property interests definitely and finally determined. Bernier v. Bernier......
-
§69.02 Assets and Liabilities not Disposed of By The Decree
...and finally determined in the decree. In re Marriage of Sedlock, 68 Wn. App. 484, 849 P.2d 1243 (1993) (citing Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629, 631, 262 P.2d 763 (1953)). The court has a duty to not award property to parties as tenants in common. Stokes v. Polley, 145 Wn.2d 341, 37 P.3d 12......
-
Table of Cases
...Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S. Ct. 2569, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1977) . 14.02[2][c][ii], [3][b][iii], 14.04[2][b] Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629, 262 P.2d 763 (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.04[5][a]; 68.02; 69.02 Shaffer, In re Marriage of, 47 Wn. App. 189, 733 P.2d 1013 (1987) 27.......
-
§54.04 Drafting Written Agreements
...other grounds recognized, Freedom Found. v. Teamsters Local 117, Segregated Fund, 197 Wn.2d 116, 480 P.3d 119 (2021); Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629, 262 P.2d 763 (1953). A decree must definitely and finally determine each party's interest in property. Moore v. Moore, 9 Wn. App. 951, 953,......
-
§68.02 Personal Property Transfers
...as the parties have the right to have their respective interests definitely and finally determined in the decree. Shaffer v. Shaffer, 43 Wn.2d 629, 631, 262 P.2d 763 (1953). The court can only leave the parties as tenants in common when the decree fixes each spouse's share of the asset and ......