Weiss v. Weiss, 39848
| Decision Date | 27 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 39848,39848 |
| Citation | 452 P.2d 748,75 Wn.2d 596 |
| Parties | Lillian S. WEISS, Respondent, v. George A. WEISS, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Frederic P. Holbrook, Seattle, for appellant.
Riddell, Williams, Voorhees, Ivie & Bullitt, Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a divorce decree entered March 6, 1967, terminating a marriage of more than 30 years duration. Each party craved and secured a divorce from the other. Their 3 children have all (as of the date of this opinion) attained their majority. The wife is earning some $8,000 a year as a teacher; the husband is earning some $11,000 a year as a real estate appraiser. The total assets of the community were found by the trial court to have a value of $160,099.26. Assets awarded to the wife were found by the trial court to have a value of $77,420.75. Assets awarded to the husband were found by the trial court to have a value of $82,678.51.
There was no provision for alimony.
The trial court, in its findings of fact, placed a present valuation on each item, including the husband's Naval Reserve retirement benefits at $21,009 and his U.S. Civil Service retirement benefits at.$31,872.
These benefits were awarded to the husband as part of the property division. He appeals; his contention being that the valuation placed on these retirement benefits is much too high and that if the value of the retirement benefits were computed by the method he deems preferable, a much lower valuation would be the result and the distribution between the parties would not then approach the near equality which the trial court desired to achieve in this case.
The only applicable assignment of error is as follows:
The evaluation of the retirement systems should not be determined by statistical future events in a divorce action, but should be evaluated as any other insurance, that is, present cash value or contributions paid in by the community. (Assignment of error No. 1.)
The appellant ignores Rule on Appeal 43 which Inter alia requires:
In appeals from all actions at law or in equity tried to the court without a jury, the findings of fact made by the court will be accepted as the established facts in the case unless error is assigned thereto. No error assigned to any finding or findings of fact made or refused will be considered unless so much of the finding or findings as is claimed to be erroneous shall be set out verbatim in the brief. * * *
Such an assignment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pollock v. Pollock
...a property distribution under such circumstances has been recently recognized in stating the general rule applicable. Weiss v. Weiss, 75 Wash.2d 596, 452 P.2d 748 (1969); Mayo v. Mayo, 75 Wash.2d 36, 448 P.2d 926 (1968); Rogstad v. Rogstead, 74 Wash.2d 736, 446 P.2d 340 (1968); Beck v. Beck......
-
Union Bank v. Kruger
...to any of the findings of fact made by the trial court in the instant case, they shall be treated as verities. Weiss v. Weiss, 75 Wash.Dec.2d 609, 452 P.2d 748 (1969). We must then determine whether the findings made by the court support the conclusions of law and judgment. The trial court ......
-
Goodman v. Bethel School Dist. No. 403
...ROA I--43; West Coast Airlines Inc. v. Miner's Aircraft & Engine Serv., Inc., 66 Wash.2d 513, 403 P.2d 833 (1965); Weiss v. Weiss, 75 Wash.2d 596, 452 P.2d 748 (1969). As matters stand, then, we are concerned only with whether the challenged conclusions of law are supported by the findings ......
-
Painting & Decorating Contractors of America Inc. v. Ellensburg School Dist.
...it is bound by the trial court's categorization in finding 24. See, Riley v. Rhay, 76 Wash.2d 32, 454 P.2d 820 (1969); Weiss v. Weiss, 75 Wash.2d 596, 452 P.2d 748 (1969). That being the case, the District's rather lengthy and technical argument is without basis, the trial court having excl......