Van Kleffens v. Van Kleffens

• Decision Date: 14 February 1929
• Docket Number: 21350.
• Citation: 150 Wash. 685,274 P. 708
• Parties: VAN KLEFFENS v. VAN KLEFFENS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

274 P. 708

150 Wash. 685

VAN KLEFFENS v. VAN KLEFFENS.

No. 21350.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 14, 1929

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John A. Frater, Judge.

Action by Elsie Van Kleffens against George Van Kleffens.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Affirmed.

Clarence L. Gere and Van Dyke & Thomas, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Julia Waldrip Kerr, of Olympia, and Herr, Bayley, Croson & Innis of Seattle, for respondent.

HOLCOMB J.

Respondent sued appellant for a divorce, property settlement attorney's fees, and costs, alleging grounds for divorce which, if believed by the trial court, undoubtedly enitled her thereto.Appellant, besides pleading the general issue set up an affirmative cause of action by cross-complaint, and prayed for a decree in his favor.The court, after hearing the evidence, found that the parties were mutually at fault but that respondent was less at fault than appellant, and that certain charges of immoral conduct made by appellant against respondent were unjustified.

Appellant disclosed all his property, alleged that it was all separate property acquired either before marriage or from the proceeds and avails of separate property.He alleged that there was no community property.

The trial court made a number of findings in favor of respondent, and awarded her certain real estate and the furniture and furnishings situated therein.

Appellant offered a number of findings in his favor, which were refused.To a number of the findings made by the court and the refusal of the court to make the requested findings, appellant excepted.A great deal of the testimony is set forth in the brief of appellant and a number of deductions made therefrom upon which it is contended that the trial court erred in its findings in favor of respondent and in refusing the findings tendered by appellant; and that the trial court erred in granting the interlocutory order of divorce to respondent and awarding her the property therein described.

Although we are urged to reverse the findings, conclusions, and decree of the trial court, upon the evidence as shown by a rather lengthy record, we are unable to do so.We have examined every finding assailed by appellant, and find that there is competent evidence is every instance to support the finding.True, the evidence is in conflict, but the judge who saw and heard the witnesses was in much better position to judge of the weight and credibility to be accorded them than are we at this distance.Hughes v. Hughes,118 Wash. 262, 203 P. 376.

On the divorce issue, upon the record there is ample evidence to sustain, and no preponderance against, the findings.

As to the property settlement, appellant strenuously contends that the trial court violated the requirements of Rem.Comp. Stat. § 989, requiring the trial court to make such disposition of the property as shall appear just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by such divorce and to the party through whom it was acquired and the burdens imposed upon it for the benefit of the children.

The complaint is largely based upon the contentions that he was innocent and respondent was at fault as to any cause for a divorce, and that the property was all separate and not community property; that respondent did not assist in its acquisition; and that there are no children.It is also asserted that the award made to respondent was equal to at least one-third his entire property holdings, and is therefore inequitable.

The parties were married December 12, 1917.Appellant is 22 years older than respondent.No issue was born to the marriage.Respondent has a daughter who was 7 years of age at the time of the marriage.Both parties had been married before.

During at least 9 years of the duration of the marriage relation, as the evidence shows, and as was found by the court, respondent was extremely industrious, attentive, performed her household duties well, and did other work than the mere performance of the household duties, including labor in improving the very real estate awarded her.During that time the resources which appellant had owned previous to the marriage were largely increased, and the dairy business which he acquired in Seattle was made very...