Walls v. Walls, 25193.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | 25193. |
| Citation | 38 P.2d 205,179 Wash. 440 |
| Parties | WALLS v. WALLS. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; Calvin S. Hall, Judge.
Action by Charles E. Walls against Alice Walls, who filed a cross-complaint. From an interlocutory order directing defendant to pay plaintiff a certain sum in monthly installments for his care and maintenance and a smaller sum for fees due his attorney, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hull & Shropshire, of Yakima (substituted for Lafe H. Bond), for appellant.
Jno. H Bruff, of Yakima, for respondent.
The parties to this action intermarried August 16, 1920 plaintiff being then fifty-eight years of age and defendant approximately twenty years younger. After thirteen years of married life, plaintiff sued for a divorce, alleging that defendant had treated him cruelly.
Defendant cross-complained, asking that a divorce be awarded her upon the same ground. The court, after a hearing, by an appropriate order, awarded a divorce to each of the parties and, there being no children to be considered, apportioned the property between them. After quieting defendant's title to some real property which defendant owned in her separate right, and awarding to her personal property in which the community had an interest, the court set over to plaintiff the vendors' interest in a contract for the sale of real estate and some tools, etc., of small value; the interlocutory order then provided: * * *'
The court also directed that defendant pay $250 on account of fees due plaintiff's attorney, each party to pay his own costs, save as to this allowance.
From this interlocutory order defendant has appealed to this court.
Appellant assigns error upon the award to respondent of the sum of $1,260 and upon the order directing her to pay $250 on account of respondent's attorney's fees, both of these awards having been made liens upon the property awarded to her.
Appellant contends that, under the laws of this state the court has no authority to require the wife to pay to the husband permanent alimony or maintenance, and that the portion of the order of which she complains falls within this classification. It appears that appellant prior to her marriage to respondent was possessed of some real estate, and that at the time of the trial the parties owned some community property. Appellant argues that it should be held that the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Hadley, In re
...be so treated. There is no magic in the use of these terms. Thompson v. Thompson, 82 Wash.2d 352, 510 P.2d 827 (1973); Walls v. Walls, 179 Wash. 440, 38 P.2d 205 (1934). Our concern is with the fairness of the award as determined by those factors set out in RCW 26.09.080 (property) and RCW ......
-
Lopez v. Lopez
...McLean, 69 N.D. 665, 290 N.W. 913; Fargo v. Fargo, 47 S.D. 289, 198 N.W. 355; Wigton v. Wigton, 73 Colo. 337, 216 P. 1055; Walls v. Walls, 179 Wash. 440, 38 P.2d 205. In Arkansas, for example, the Legislature provided that a wife who obtains a divorce is entitled to a one-third interest in ......
-
Dreyer v. Dreyer, 632--III
...does not necessarily require that the award be so treated. Thompson v. Thompson, 82 Wash.2d 352, 510 P.2d 827 (1973); Walls v. Walls, 179 Wash. 440, 38 P.2d 205 (1934). The court in Thompson stated at page 356 of 82 Wash.2d, at page 831 of 510 P.2d as follows: Whether future payments . . . ......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...case, the property may be awarded to one with a duty to make compensating payments to the other, as in the case of Walls v. Walls, 179 Wash. 440, 38 P.2d 205 (1934), where the wife was awarded the real property and was ordered to pay to the husband a sum of money 'for his care and maintenan......