In re the Marriage of: Ellen Doneen and James Doneen

Citations: 197 Wash. App. 941; 391 P.3d 594Docket: 34064-3-III

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; February 28, 2017; Washington; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ellen Doneen appeals the trial court's property distribution following the dissolution of her 45-year marriage to James Doneen. She contends the trial court erred by not distributing all property equally, regardless of its classification. The court clarifies that under RCW 26.09.080, trial courts must consider multiple factors, including four statutory factors, in property distributions. While the duration of the marriage is one factor, it should not dominate the consideration of others. The trial court properly evaluated various factors, leading to the affirmation of its property distribution.

James and Ellen married in 1969 and lived in a farmhouse inherited by James, free of any mortgage. They earned roughly $40,000-$44,000 annually, with no debts. Ellen filed for dissolution in April 2014, and they separated in September 2014 at age 72. Ellen received about $1,100 monthly from social security and a pension, while James received approximately $1,900 from social security and a reclamation project. Health issues impacted both, with Ellen unable to work due to blood clots and James recovering from cancer and heart attacks.

A key issue at trial was the characterization of property, particularly investment accounts and real estate. James asserted the farm had been in his family for generations and intended to pass it to his grandsons. Ellen sought a valuation from a county appraiser, who estimated the land's worth at $2,000 to $3,000 per acre. In her closing, Ellen referenced *In re Marriage of Rockwell*, arguing for equal financial positioning based on property character. Conversely, James requested that nearly all community assets be awarded to Ellen, along with part of his separate property if needed. The trial court found most investment accounts and all real property to be James's separate property, valuing the real estate at $600,000 and the investment accounts at $425,978, totaling $1,025,978.

The court awarded James $800,978 and Ellen $225,000 from their separate properties, while the community marital property was valued at $151,143. Ellen received $106,532.50 and James $44,610.50 from the community property, totaling $845,588.50 for James and $331,532.50 for Ellen. Following the dissolution decree on June 2, 2015, James died shortly after, prompting Ellen to file for reconsideration, arguing that the court's distribution was inequitable given their long-term marriage. She cited a precedent requiring equalization of financial circumstances despite property character. Simultaneously, James's attorney sought reconsideration, claiming mischaracterization of several assets as community property and requesting the tractor be awarded to James. Ellen contested this motion, asserting that the attorney lacked authority post-James's death. Subsequently, both parties moved to substitute James's estate as a party. The court held a telephonic hearing, expressing a desire to achieve substantial justice and allowing for reconsideration motions despite the typical deadlines due to extraordinary circumstances. During the hearings, the court explained its rationale for the initial property distribution, clarifying that most of the awarded property was James's separate property. It acknowledged an error in classifying the Mitsubishi Lancer and Formula boat as community property and agreed to recharacterize them as James's separate property, leading to a revised decree of dissolution that adjusted the distribution of assets in favor of James's estate.

The court determined that the Mitsubishi Lancer was James's separate property but awarded it to Ellen, while the tractor was awarded to James's estate. The final property distribution placed the total value of community marital property at $107,422, with Ellen receiving $96,172 and James $11,250, resulting in a 90/10 split favoring Ellen. James's separate property was valued at $1,023,408, with Ellen receiving $228,000 and James $795,408, leading to a 78/22 split favoring James. Ellen had no separate property. Overall, James received $806,658, and Ellen received $324,172, a total split of approximately 71/29 in favor of James. Ellen appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by distributing assets unequally. Citing case law, she contends that the court should have aimed to equalize their financial positions due to the length of their marriage. While Ellen does not dispute the characterizations of the property, she references RCW 26.09.080, which mandates a "just and equitable" distribution while considering various factors such as the nature of the property, duration of the marriage, and economic circumstances. Historical precedent indicated that separate property would only be awarded in exceptional circumstances, but this rule was discarded in 1985, emphasizing that all relevant factors must be weighed without any single factor being controlling. The trial court has discretion in determining fairness, and its decisions are only overturned for manifest abuse of discretion. Ellen's argument relies on a quotation from Rockwell emphasizing equal financial positioning in long-term marriages, which is cited in the context of asset distribution.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's division of community property as 60 percent to one spouse and 40 percent to the other, emphasizing the broad discretion trial courts have in equitable distribution. The court noted that in cases where one spouse is older, semi-retired, and in ill health, while the other is employable, an unequal division is not an abuse of discretion. The court clarified that the ruling in Rockwell is not a mandate for equal division in long-term marriages, countering Ellen’s argument that the trial court should have prioritized the marriage duration factor from RCW 26.09.080. The court highlighted that RCW 26.09.080 requires consideration of both community and separate property, and noted that Ellen received approximately 90 percent of the community property and 22 percent of James's separate property, with the trial court aiming for a more equitable distribution without rigid rules. Regarding procedural issues, Ellen contested the trial court's acceptance of a motion for reconsideration filed by James's attorney posthumously, arguing it was unauthorized and that the estate was not substituted in time. However, the court concluded that the motion was valid once the estate was substituted and ratified it. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions.