Wills v. Wills, 34077
| Decision Date | 13 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 34077,34077 |
| Parties | Mary K. WILLS, Appellant, v. John M. WILLS, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Kahin, Carmody & Horswill, Seattle, for appellant.
Douglas D. Mote, MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, for respondent.
The parties were married in Seattle in 1941. The plaintiff wife was granted a divorce and custody of their four and one-half year-old son, with an award for child support in the amount of $100 a month. The parties lived in a $48,500 home in Broadmoor in Seattle and had debts and community obligations aggregating $39,876.
The plaintiff wife has appealed from the trial court's decree and contends the court erred in awarding respondent approximately two thirds of the community property and in terminating her alimony payments to $200 a month after five years. The parties hereto are agreed that the division of the property should be made without regard to fault. No objection is made to the amount of the award for child support.
We quote from appellant's brief the facts relating to the property of the parties and the division of it made by the court:
'The community assets total $104,437.72, comprised as follows:
"Community interest in partnership
known as Standard
Factors $20,483.47
45 shares Ernst Hardware Company
stock 22,500.00
Monon Railroad stock 2,375.00
Sayrescrest stock 450.00
Buick automobile 650.00
Cash 637.00
Home 48,500.00
Household furnishings 4,077.00
Cash surrender values on life
insurance policies 4,765.25
[312 P.2d 662] 'Community obligations are $39,876, as follows
"Mortgage on home property $15,290.00
Promissory note to Charles S
Wills 2,980.00
Promissory note to Charles S
Wills 3,700.00
Promissory note to Seaboard
Branch, Seattle-First National
Bank 2,900.00
Promissory note to Ernst Hardware
Company 13,408.00
Furniture account to Ernst
Hardware Company 1,450.00
Fuel bill 48.00
Broadmoor Maintenance
Commission 100.00
* * * * * *
'By the Decree, the wife was awarded her separate property totalling $11,265, and of the community property the household furnishings valued by the court at $4,002, the family car, $650, plus $18,000 cash to be paid from the house sale--a total of $22,652 in community property.
'The husband was awarded his separate property of $6,504.90 plus the rest of the community property, valued at $44,649.37 in excess of the debts he assumed.
'The wife was awarded costs and $450 attorneys' fees.'
We agree with appellant that when the parties are both without fault, the community property should be divided more equally than two thirds of it to one and one third to the other. Accordingly, we modify the decree herein in an attempt to divide the community property more equally.
We affirm that part of the decree which awarded respondent the following items Forty-five shares of Ernst Hardware Company stock valued at $22,500; a partnership interest in Standard Factors valued at $20,483.47; Monon railroad stock valued at $2,375; Sayrescrest stock valued at $450; furniture valued at $75; and cash in the amount of $637.
We also affirm that part of the decree which awarded respondent his separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leuthold's Estate, In re
...on life insurance policies' are community property which the court may award to one of the other of the spouses. See Wills v. Wills, 1957, 50 Wash.2d 439, 312 P.2d 661. That the cash value of life insurance is property was clearly demonstrated by the United States Board of Tax , Appeals in ......
-
In re Marriage of Peppin, No. 27336-9-III (Wash. App. 10/27/2009)
...and equitable division of the community property from their eight-year marriage. To support his argument, Jay relies on Wills v. Wills, 50 Wn.2d 439, 312 P.2d 661 (1957). However, Wills involved a long-term marriage, approximately 16 years, and was decided before the no fault principle was ......
-
Colson v. Colson
...joint use. Consequently, we find no manifest abuse of discretion by the trial court in its division of property. Cf. Wills v. Wills, 50 Wash.2d 439, 312 P.2d 661 (1957); Ovens v. Ovens, 61 Wash.2d 6, 376 P.2d 839 (1962); Garrett v. Garrett, 67 Wash.2d 646, 409 P.2d 470 Second, plaintiff con......
-
Eide v. Eide
...some degree upon the nature of the division of the property. Johnson v. Johnson, 53 Wash.2d 107, 330 P.2d 1075 (1958); Wills v. Wills, 50 Wash.2d 439, 312 P.2d 661 (1957). Here, it clearly appears the trial court found that additional legal services were required because of the intransigenc......