Stacy v. Stacy
| Decision Date | 12 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 37833,37833 |
| Citation | 68 Wn.2d 573,414 P.2d 791 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Phyllis W. STACY, Appellant, v. Maurice W. STACY, Respondent. |
Kahin, Horswill, Keller, Rohrback, Waldo & Moren, Erle W. Horswill, Seattle, for appellant.
Devin, Hutchinson & Rolfe, Seattle, for respondent.
Phyllis and Maurice Stacy married in 1942. In 1964, when Phyllis Stacy brought this divorce action their three children were 17, 16 and 9 years old. The trial court granted her the divorce on grounds set forth in finding of fact No. 8, 'That the defendant has treated the plaintiff in a cruel and inhuman manner in that he has physically abused her by striking her,' and gave her custody of the children, allowing the husband visitation rights. She appeals, assigning as error inadequacy of child support, alimony and property awarded.
At the time of trial in 1964, the wife was 41 years old, the husband was 43, and both were in good health. As to their earning capabilities, the court found (No. 7) The decree required defendant husband to pay child support of $100 per month for each of the three children until age 21, alimony to the wife of $100 per month for 5 years, and made a division of the property substantially as follows:
Awarded to appellant, Phyllis Stacy
Her separate property consisting
of the Bache account in
a total of $ 3,500.00
108 shares of Texaco stock 8,100.00
Savings account 803.00
Community property consisting
of household furniture
and furnishings 2,000.00
1953 Ford Sedan 100.00
Equity in family home based
upon the lower appraised
figure of $32,500, less a
mortgage balance of $7,633
and lien in favor of respondent
in the total sum of
$7,500 17,200.00
----------
Total $31,703.00
Awarded to respondent, Maurice Stacy:
Hitachi stock $ 1,400.00
1960 Ford automobile 1,250.00
Lien on family home 7,500.00
Personal possessions 200.00
Bank account 200.00
----------
Total $10,550.00
Thus, under the decree, the husband will pay a total of $400 per month to the wife, reducible by $100 as each child attains the age of 21 years, including the $100 per month alimony which ends in 5 years.
The family residence, having an appraised value of $32,500, was subject to a mortgage of $7,633. This home the court awarded to plaintiff wife subject to the mortgage, but additionally impressed it with a $7,500 lien in the husband's favor, foreclosable 6 months after entry of the divorce decree and awarded the husband his attorney's fees in the foreclosure plus interest at 6 per cent on the lien. The monetary value of the home awarded the wife, after deducting the mortgage and the husband's $7,500 lien, thus came to about $17,000--but had as its principal function the providing of an actual residence for the wife and children, or an asset convertible to money with which to buy another house.
Although there is a marked disparity in value under the decree between the property awarded the wife and that of the husband, the difference, when considered in light of the wife's need to provide and furnish a home for herself and the children, tends to disappear. However, a similar disparity between the earning capacities of the two tends to persist. The wife, with three children to maintain, either at home or in college, will have a total income of $400 per month from her husband for less than 5 years, plus such additional amounts as she may earn.
The record discloses no history of employment for her during their 22 years of marriage nor any training for gainful employment prior thereto. Although the wife's health will allow her to work, her age, lack of training and qualifications will tend to consign her to employment of low income and uncertain tenure. Unless she can financially provide herself with the necessary training and experience to qualify for a job, it is unlikely that she will earn enough to maintain an adequate standard of living for herself and the three children during the next 5 years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Van De Graaf
...69 Wn. App. 57, 847 P.2d 518 (1993); In re Marriage of Anglin, 52 Wn. App. 317, 759 P.2d 1224 (1988); see also Stacy v. Stacy, 68 Wn.2d 573, 576, 414 P.2d 791 (1966) (when awarding alimony following a long-term marriage, the court should consider and weigh the future earning capabilities of......
-
Arnold v. Department of Retirement Systems
...Washburn, 101 Wash.2d 168, 181, 677 P.2d 152 (1984); DeRuwe v. DeRuwe, 72 Wash.2d 404, 408, 433 P.2d 209 (1967); Stacy v. Stacy, 68 Wash.2d 573, 576-77, 414 P.2d 791 (1966); In re Parks, 58 Wash.App. 511, 516 n. 4, 794 P.2d 59 (1990); In re Haugh, 58 Wash.App. 1, 11, 790 P.2d 1266 (1990); I......
-
Pollock v. Pollock
...that engenders the paramount concern in providing for child support and alimony and in making a property division. Stacy v. Stacy, 68 Wash.2d 573, 414 P.2d 791 (1966). Although this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in questions of child support, custody, al......
-
Singer v. Hara
...wife and the ability of the husband to pay . . .' Thompson v. Thompson, 82 Wash.2d 352, 357, 510 P.2d 827, 831 (1973); Stacy v. Stacy, 68 Wash.2d 573, 414 P.2d 791 (1966). Although, in appropriate circumstances, alimony may be awarded to 'the husband' rather than to 'the wife,' it is clear ......
-
Table of Cases
...Stachofsky, In re Marriage of, 90 Wn. App. 135, 951 P.2d 346, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1010 (1998).31.03[2] Stacy v. Stacy, 68 Wn.2d 573, 414 P.2d 791 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.08[2][g] Stafford v. Stafford, 18 Wn.2d 775, 140 P.2d 545 (1943) . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
-
§27.08 Educating The Client
...long-term marriage, neither should be reduced to a substantially lesser living style than enjoyed during the marriage. Stacy v. Stacy, 68 Wn.2d 573, 576, 414 P.2d 791 (1996); In re Marriage of Brossman, 32 Wn. App. 851, 650 P.2d 246 (1982), review denied, 98 Wn.2d 1017 (1983). [h] Other Fac......