Triggs v. Triggs
| Decision Date | 25 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 28489-1-III,28489-1-III |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of: JUDITH KAY TRIGGS, Respondent, and MICHAEL KEVIN TRIGGS, Appellant. |
Siddoway, J. — Michael Triggs appeals the division of assets, order of maintenance, and award of attorney fees determined in the dissolution of his 34-year marriage to Judith Triggs. He identifies two small errors in the trial court's property distribution decision that are too inconsequential to require reversal. We agree with his contention that the trial court's award of attorney fees, on the existing record, was unsupported. We reject his other assignments of error.
We vacate the award of fees to Judith Triggs, otherwise affirm, and remand for the trial court's further consideration of any award of trial fees and costs.
Michael Triggs and Judith Triggs separated in January 2008 after almost 34 years of marriage. Judith1 petitioned for dissolution in February 2008 and the trial took place 17 months later, in July 2009.
At the time of trial, Judith was 63 and Michael was 57. Both were working full time and had worked full time for most of the marriage; Judith had given up outside employment for 12 years, to be at home with her children until they entered grade school. Judith's earned income at the time of the dissolution proceedings ($3,600 gross per month) was less than half the income then earned by Michael ($7,700 gross per month). The parties acquired significant assets during their marriage including the family home, several retirement accounts, and bank accounts at issue on appeal.
Judith was represented by counsel at the dissolution trial and Michael appeared pro se. At the outset of proceedings, many exhibits were admitted without objection, including most of the contents of a binder of 38 financial exhibits offered by Judith that was marked in its entirety as exhibit 2; the account statements, tax returns, and other records contained in the exhibit were referred to as exhibits 2.1 through 2.38. Also offered by Judith were her exhibits 3 and 13: spreadsheets setting forth her summary of the parties' community assets and their values. Exhibits 3 and 13 were offered "forillustrative purposes only" and were admitted on that basis. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 6, 74. The trial court explained the purpose of the spreadsheets to Michael, who had not offered any corresponding summary:
[T]ypically one or the other attorney or both of them will prepare spreadsheets like this just so we have something to work from. And then people go through and they say, well, this number should be something different. It[ ] just gives me something to work with, rather than trying to write it down.
RP at 9-10. Following admission of the agreed exhibits, Judith's lawyer told the trial court that Michael had provided updated numbers for four assets included on the spreadsheets (three retirement accounts, referred to on the spreadsheets as Vanguard, Novations, and Tradewind; and a stock, Nuvotec). The following colloquy occurred:
RP at 10-11. Michael did not agree or disagree, on the record, with this characterization of the values.
In later announcing its property distribution decision, the trial court provided the parties with a spreadsheet reflecting the assets at issue, its finding as to their values, and its allocation of the assets and associated values to the parties. RP at 189; Clerk's Papers (CP) at 107. Most of the values conformed to those included in exhibits 3 and 13. The court divided the approximately $600,000 that it determined to be community property virtually 50/50. It awarded each party their respective separate property. It ordered Michael to pay $1,700 per month in maintenance until he retires, and also ordered Michael to pay as maintenance half of the difference between his Social Security income and Judith's Social Security income once he begins receiving it. Finally, it ordered Michael to pay $6,000 toward Judith's attorney fees.
Michael, represented by counsel in this appeal, assigns error to the trial court's (1) valuation of several assets and debts, which he contends were based solely on Judith's illustrative exhibits; (2) use of different dates for valuing several items of property;(3) allocation of the burden of proof in determining the portion of the value of the family home constituting Judith's separate property; (4) alleged failure to consider the statutory factors provided at RCW 26.09.090 in awarding maintenance to Judith, an award he argues is not supported by substantial evidence; (5) alleged improper division of his Social Security benefits beginning on his 66th birthday; and (6) award to Judith of an amount to be applied to her attorney fees, without considering the substantial assets awarded her by its decree.
Michael first assigns error to the trial court's valuation of his Vanguard retirement account, his Novations retirement account, and two small debts to Sears and Valencia Yard that were allocated to Judith. He argues that no substantive evidence was offered to support the values for these assets and liabilities included in Judith's illustrative exhibits and that the court abused its discretion by relying on values from those exhibits to divide the marital property.
In entering a decree of dissolution, a trial court is to make a "just and equitable" division of marital property after considering all relevant factors, including (1) the nature and extent of the community property, (2) the nature and extent of the separate property, (3) the duration of the marriage, and (4) the economic circumstances of each spouse atthe time the division of property is to become effective. RCW 26.09.080. It enjoys broad discretion. In re Marriage of Gillespie, 89 Wn. App. 390, 399, 948 P.2d 1338 (1997). We do not hold the trial court to a standard of mathematical precision. In re Marriage of Konzen, 103 Wn.2d 470, 477-78, 693 P.2d 97, cert. denied, 473 U.S. 906 (1985); see also In re Marriage of White, 105 Wn. App. 545, 549, 20 P.3d 481 (2001) ().
We will seldom modify a trial court's distribution decisions upon appeal; the spouse who challenges such a decision bears the heavy burden of showing a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or untenable reasons. In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39, 46-47, 940 P.2d 1362 (1997). A decision is manifestly unreasonable "if it is outside the range of acceptable choices, given the facts and the applicable legal standard; it is based on untenable grounds if the factual findings are unsupported by the record; it is based on untenable reasons if it is based on an incorrect standard or the facts do not meet the requirements of the correct standard." Id. at 47. If substantial evidence supports the court's findings of value, it will be affirmed. Gillespie, 89 Wn. App. at 403-04. To determine whether substantial evidence exists to support a court's finding of fact, we review the record in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the findings are entered. Id.
Much in the trial proceedings suggests that the July 2009 Vanguard and Novations retirement account values were reliable figures, provided by Michael. Evidence offered by Judith included statements for the Vanguard and Novations retirement accounts through March 31, 2009 that reflected lesser values: $89,925.65 for the Novations account and $263,054.92 for the Vanguard account. But at trial, Judith's lawyer told the court that he had tried to secure current values for all of the parties' retirement accounts and, in the exchange recounted above, he characterized the now-disputed July 2009 values for Michael's retirement accounts included in Judith's exhibits 3 and 13 as updated values provided by Michael that were agreeable to Judith. Michael neither objected to, nor agreed with, this characterization of the values by Judith's lawyer. Judith does not contend that Michael's silent acquiescence was enough to qualify the colloquy as a stipulation under CR 2A.
When later examined, Michael was asked questions that explicitly assumed that the Vanguard and Novations accounts had, respectively, the disputed $281,000 and $102,000 values. He did not object to the questions as assuming facts not in evidence nor did he take issue with any premise of the questions. In offering exhibit 13 following a lunch break, Judith's lawyer explained that he had redone the exhibit at noon, which now included the $281,477 and $102,054 values, "taking [Michael's] word" for the current values. RP at 158. Again, Michael did not take issue with this representation. When itcame time to present his case, Michael did not offer evidence of different values for the two accounts.
Even accepting Michael's position that the foregoing trial proceedings fall short of substantive evidence of the higher values reflected on the illustrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial