Willson v. Willson

• Decision Date: 01 March 1915
• Docket Number: 12105.
• Citation: 146 P. 615,84 Wash. 240
• Parties: WILLSON v. WILLSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

146 P. 615

84 Wash. 240

WILLSON v. WILLSON.

No. 12105.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 1, 1915

Department 2.Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John E Humphries, Judge.

Action for divorce by Florence Murphy Willson against Herbert E Willson, with cross-complaint by defendant.Decree for plaintiff, cross-complaint dismissed, and defendant appeals.Modified and remanded.

Bates Peer & Peterson, of Tacoma, for appellant.

Miller & Lysons, of Seattle, for respondent.

ELLIS, J.

This is an action for divorce.The complaint embodies three grounds of action, namely, cruel treatment, abandonment for more than a year, and personal indignities rendering the plaintiff's life burdensome.The facts relied upon were all set out with much particularity and detail.The prayer was for a decree of absolute divorce, for custody of the minor child, and for an award of so much of defendant's property as the court should find the plaintiff entitled to for the support of herself and the child.The answer denied generally all of these allegations of fact, and interposed a cross-complaint averring cruelty and personal indignities towards the defendant on the plaintiff's part, and prayed that the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed, that a divorce be granted to the defendant, and that the court make such order for the care, custody, and support of the child as might to it seem just and proper.

The parties were married in the city of Seattle on January 4 1911.They have one child, a boy born October 10, 1911.They lived together until April 6, 1912, when the plaintiff, with defendant's consent and on his agreement to pay her $40 a month for the support of herself and the child, returned to her mother's home in Seattle, where she and the child have since remained.The evidence shows that at the time of the marriage the defendant owned as his separate property real estate in and near Tacoma, Wash., and at Cordova and Fairbanks, Alaska, of an estimated value of something near $60,000; that it is largely unimproved and unproductive, and its ultimate value will be dependent upon judicious management.Some of the property is incumbered.There is no satisfactory evidence that the property has been materially increased since the marriage.

In October, 1911, the defendant, with one Boone, incorporated the Willsonia Investment Company as a holding corporation for the defendant's property with a capitalization of $100,000, consisting of 1,000 shares of a par value of $100 each.The defendant conveyed to this corporation all of his property in exchange for its capital stock, and plaintiff joined in these conveyances.All of the stock, save one share issued to Boone, was issued to the defendant.Prior to the formation of this corporation Boone had loaned to the defendant $5,500, which was used in the conservation of the property, and as security therefor, and for contemplated future advances, the defendant transferred to Boone 400 additional shares.Subsequently Boone advanced to the defendant $1,755.70.The court found, upon what we deem sufficient evidence, that the defendant was indebted to Boone at the time of the trial in the sum of $7,255.70, and that Boone holds the 400 shares of stock as security therefor.Boone himself so testified.

The court found specifically nearly all of the facts as alleged in the complaint in support of the charges of cruelty and abandonment against the defendant, made no finding touching the charge of personal indignities, dismissed the defendant's cross-complaint, and concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of divorce; that she was entitled to the custody and care of the child, subject to the right of the defendant to visit it at the home of her brother in the city of Seattle twice each month; that she was entitled to one-half of all of the property, both real and personal, belonging to the defendant, and to $1,000 to be paid to her attorneys for their services in the action.The decree went accordingly, and in addition reserved to the court continued jurisdiction over all of the property, with the right to make 'such supplemental decree as shall be necessary in the premises for the proper husbanding, protection, and distribution of the same.'The defendant appealed.

Synthetically stated, the appellant's contentions are: (1) That the findings of cruelty and desertion were not supported by the evidence; (2) that the division of the property was inequitable, not for the best interest of either of the parties, and that the court had no power to continue its control of the same for the purpose of husbanding and distribution.

1.Touching the grounds of divorce, the evidence is voluminous.The abstract of record comprises almost 400 pages...