CourtListener opinion 2828906

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

FILED 

 AUG. 20, 2015 

 In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

 W A State Court of Appeals, Division III 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

 DIVISION THREE 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE )
OF: ) No. 32022-7-III
 )
DIANEL. WOOD )
 )
 Respondent, )
 ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
 and )
 )
ZALE K. WOOD, )
 )
 Appellant. )

 FEARING, J. -. Zale Wood assigns error to most rulings of the trial court in his

divorce action with Diane Wood, Zale's wife for forty-nine years. Since the trial court

applied the correct legal standards and properly exercised its discretion, we affirm the

judgment and decree of marital dissolution entered below.

 FACTS

 Diane and Zale Wood married on July 5, 1960 in Yakima. In 1980, the Woods

purchased a Yakima County home on seventeen acres, and they resided together in the

home until their separation. The couple begat and nurtured two now adult children.
 No. 32022-7-111
In re the Marriage of Wood

 Throughout most of the marriage, Zale worked in construction as a member of the

Teamsters Union. He retired and began drawing a Teamsters pension in 2002, but still

continued to work on occasion. The Teamsters pension was a principal retirement asset.

Diane worked as a homemaker throughout the marriage. In 2009, Diane and Zale Wood

separated.

 PROCEDURE

 On April 7, 2009, Diane Wood filed a petition for legal separation. Diane later

converted the separation petition to a divorce petition. In her petition, Diane stated that

her monthly income was $577.40 in Socifll Security benefits and her monthly expenses

were $4,516.00. Diane listed Zale's monthly income as $8,932.10.

 On May 18,2009, the trial court issued temporary orders requiring Zale Wood to

pay Diane $2,221 per month in spousal maintenance and the two home mortgage

payments in the aggregate of $1,779 per month. The maintenance and mortgage

payments amounted to $4,000 per month. Diane continued to reside in the family home.

On January 4, 2010, the trial court lowered Zale's spousal maintenance obligation to

$1,190 per month, in light of his temporary unemployment. The trial court continued to

order Zale to pay the two mortgage payments, and the court ordered Zale to notifY Diane

once he started work again or garnered unemployment benefits.

 In April or May 2010, Zale Wood returned to work, but did not notifY Diane or the

court. On September 16,2010, Zale suffered serious injuries in a workplace accident.

 2

 No. 32022-7-III
In re the Marriage of Wood

The injuries prevented Zale from working, and he began receiving worker compensation

benefits.

 On May 6,2011, Zale Wood moved the court for an order allowing him to retrieve

his personal property from the Woods' residence and holding Diane in contempt for

selling the martial community's animals, without accounting for the sales. In response,

Diane agreed that Zale could retrieve his personal property at any time. During oral

argument before this appeals court, Zale's counsel could not answer whether Zale has

garnered all of his personal property. Wash. Court of Appeals oral argument, In re the

Marriage of Wood, 32022-7-III (June 10,2015) at 7:40. At oral argument, Diane's

counsel stated that Zale collected all of his personal property. Wash. Court of Appeals

oral argument, In re the Marriage of Wood, 32022-7-III (June 10,2015) at 15:50).

 On May 12,2011, Diane Wood requested an increase in maintenance. On June 1,

2011, the trial court increased Zale Wood's spousal maintenance obligation to $1,750 per

month and continued the direction for Zale to pay the two mortgage payments. The court

ordered Diane to provide an accounting of the proceeds from any animal sales. The trial

court also ordered the parties to arrange a time for Zale to visit the Yakima property and

retrieve his possessions.

 On August 29, 2011, the trial court found Zale Wood in contempt for willful

violation of the June 1 maintenance order. The court awarded Diane Wood $1,650 in

 3

 No. 32022-7-III
In re the Marriage of Wood

maintenance owed between June 1 and August 31; $1,300 in attorney fees due by

November 30, 2011; and $500 in attorney fees due by December 31, 2011.

 The marriage dissolution proceeded to trial on April 9, 2013. At trial, Diane

proposed raising Zale Wood's maintenance obligation to $2,996, but relieving him of the

mortgage payments. Diane filed a current benefits statement she received from the Social

Security Administration, stating that her monthly benefit, after Medicare deductions, was

$651, for a yearly total of$7,812.

 During the quarrelsome trial, the trial court declined to consider Zale or Diane

Wood's conduct regarding preservation of the financial wealth of the marital estate. The

court commented:

 A lot of times in these situations people want to talk about who spent
 the money during the divorce, where the money went during the divorce
 and the truth is it doesn't matter. We are where we are and the debt is what
 it is as of-at least as of the date of separation. Debt incurred after
 separation may be the responsibility of the person incurring that debt but
 for money that was badly invested, poorly spent, whatever, before the
 separation, that's part of marriage and so we're not going to spend a lot of
 time talking about who spent what during the marriage because it ends up
 not making any difference. Like I said, you are where you are.

Report of Proceedings (RP) (Apr. 9, 2013) at 10-11. In addition to Zale claiming Diane

squandered property, Diane argued that Zale lost money on gambling.

 On April 10,2013, the trial court issued an oral ruling awarding the Yakima home

and acreage to Zale Wood and ordering Diane Wood to cooperate in its sale; requiring

Zale to continue paying both mortgages; awarding Diane the personal property in the

 4

 No. 32022-7-III
In re the Marriage of Wood

house, except for Zale's clothes, tools, stock truck, and tractor; and granting the divorce.

The trial court further ruled:

 I'm going to equalize the income. Yes, the L&I is Mr. Wood's
 separate property. But when I'm considering how to divide things, I'm
 considering ... what's the ... relative financial condition of the parties and
 so on and this L&I ... is designed as a replacement for income that he
 would have been getting and so ... Ijust factor that in. So, basically it's
 going to be-she gets her Social Security. He gets his L&I and then the
 various pension payments and so on would be divided so that net they come
 out equal in terms of what their monthly income is. Then if ... there's a
 change in the L&I, either up or down, that would by agreement of the
 parties, would be considered grounds for modification and so I'm ordering
 that when there's a determination made on the future of that L&I, if there's
 any change to it, then that can be brought back to Court if you can't agree
 on how it should be changed. You can bring it back to Court for
 modification of the maintenance.

RP (Apr. 102013) at 169. The division of the parties' combined income would begin on

April 15, 2013. Zale Wood would pay $1,750 in maintenance payments per month until

the couple's property sold.

 On May 22,2013, Diane Wood moved the court to hold Zale in contempt for

failing to comply with the June 1,2011 maintenance order; the August 29,2011 contempt

order; and the April 10,2013 trial oral ruling. On May 31, 2013, the court held Zale in

contempt for making untimely and incomplete maintenance payments. The court ordered

him to pay $300 in back maintenance and $250 in attorney fees. Nevertheless, the trial

court denied Diane's request to hold Zale in contempt for unpaid maintenance payments

equivalent to her share of his pensions, noting that Diane needed to determine whether

 5

 No. 32022-7-111
In re the Marriage of Wood

she was entitled to more social security benefits before the court could finalize Zale's

maintenance obligation.

 On July 30, 2013, Diane Wood noted a hearing for August 9 to present proposed

findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a decree of dissolution. Diane proposed a

judgment against Zale for $7,986 in unpaid maintenance between February 1,2013 and

July 31, 2013. She sought future maintenance in the sum of $4,50 1 monthly and an

award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. The findings and conclusions listed Zale's

worker compensation payments as the couple's community property. On August 8, 2013,

the day before the hearing, Zale Wood filed an objection to the amount of maintenance in

the proposed findings, Diane Wood's request for attorney fees, and to Diane's inclusion

of her separate credit cards as community liabilities.

 On August 9, 2013, the court conducted a hearing to enter findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and a decree of dissolution. Zale Wood informed the trial court that

the Yakima property sold with a net profit of approximately $8,000. Diane stated that

she contacted the social security administration, and it informed her that she was entitled

to no additional benefits. The parties agreed to reduce Zale's maintenance obligation if

Diane incurred more social security benefits in the future. Zale continued to object to the

amount of maintenance proposed by Diane, and he argued that the maintenance

calculation did not reflect a reduction in his worker compensation benefits. The trial

court expressed frustration with the parties' failure to perform arithmetic calculations,

 6

 No.3 2022-7-III
In re the Marriage of Wood

and he ordered them to cooperate to revise the final orders to accurately reflect Zale's

current monthly income from pensions and benefits.

 Two weeks later, Diane Wood rescheduled entry of the final decree of dissolution,

and findings and conclusions for September 18,2013. Diane mailed a copy of her

proposed order to Zale Wood's attorney on August 21,2013, before she rescheduled a

hearing. The second version of the proposed findings still listed Zale's worker

compensation benefits as community property. The second proposed decree divided the

net proceeds from the sale of the house between the parties, awarded Diane $5,630 for

back maintenance, and granted Diane $4,094 in future monthly maintenance. The

proposed decree directed that future maintenance be reduced proportionate to the amount

of payment Diane monthly receives from qualified domestic relations orders on Zale's

pensions.

 On September 3,2013, Zale Wood's attorney withdrew. On September 18,2013,

the day of the second hearing for entry of the final decree, Zale moved to continue the

hearing because he had yet to replace his lawyer. The trial court denied the motion to

continue. Zale argued, without counsel, the merits of the entry of the findings and

conclusions and contended that the facts did not support the trial court's oral ruling. Zale

objected to the amount of maintenance that the trial court ordered him to pay. At the

close of the September 18 hearing, the trial court entered the findings of fact, conclusions

of law, and divorce decree as proposed by Diane.

 7

 No. 32022-7-II1
In re the Marriage of Wood

 Zale Wood obtained new counsel on September 23, 2013. On September 30,

2013, Zale moved for reconsideration, which motion the trial court denied.

 LAW AND ANALYSIS

 On appeal, Zale Wood contends: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying

Zale's motion to continue the September 18,2013 presentment hearing, (2) the trial court

violated article IV, section 20 of the Washington Constitution and RCW 2.08.240 by

failing to provide Zale a final decision within ninety days of the trial, (3) the trial court

abused its discretion in denying Zale a court order to retrieve personal property from the

Woods' former residence, (4) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding testimony

at trial regarding the parties' contributions and misconduct during their forty-nine year

marriage, (5) the trial court erred in taking into consideration Zale's monthly social

security and worker compensation disability benefits when calculating Diane's spousal

maintenance award, (6) the trial court abused its discretion under RCW 26.09.090 in

awarding spousal maintenance, and (7) the trial court abused its discretion under RCW

26.09.080 in its division of the parties' assets and liabilities. We address the contentions

in such order.

 Issue 1: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Zale Wood's

motion to continue the September 18,2013 presentment hearing?

 Answer 1: No.

 We first address two purported procedural errors assigned by Zale Wood. Zale

 8

 No. 32022-7-III
In re the Marriage of Wood

. argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to continue the September 18, 2013

hearing, after his attorney withdrew on September 3,2013. Zale argues that, even though

Diane Wood complied with CR 52(b)'s requirement of giving lO-days' notice of entry of

final orders to the opposing party, he lacked time to review the findings of fact and

conclusions of law due to his residence in Puyallup and his attorney's withdrawal. Zale

asserts prejudice as a result of the trial court's denial of his motion to continue the

presentment hearing until he could hire another attorney. Diane responds that Zale's

motion for a continuance was untimely and meritiess, and she observes that the trial court

gave Zale the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration to correct any error in the

findings of fact, conclusions of law, or dissolution decree.

 This court reviews a trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance for manifest

abuse of discretion. Molsness v. City of Walla Walla, 84 Wn. App. 393,400,928 P.2d

1108 (1996). A trial court manifestly abuses its discretion if no reasonable person would

take the view adopted by the court. Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht

Corp., 85 Wn. App. 695, 709, 934 P.2d 715 (1997), aff'd, 135 Wn.2d 894, 959 P.2d 1052

(1998).

 We hold that the trial court below did not abuse its discretion in denying Zale

Wood's motion for a continuance. Although his attorney's withdrawal created

inconvenience, Diane Wood provided Zale ample notice of presenting the final orders to

the trial court. During the presentment hearing, Zale did not argue that orders prepared

 9

 No. 32022-7-III
In re the Marriage of Wood

by Diane failed to reflect the trial court's oral rulings or that Zale needed an attorney to

draft a correct version of the orders to mirror the trial court's rulings. Zale instead

continued his ongoing objection to the amount of maintenance the trial court ordered and

the trial court's division of property. Thus, Zale was not prejudiced by the trial court's

denial of his motion for a continuance, and we find no abuse of discretion in denying the

motion to continue.

 Issue 2: Whether the trial court violated article IV, section 20 ofthe Washington

Constitution and RCW 2.08.240 by failing to issue afinal decision within 90 days?

 Answer 2: No.

 Zale Wood next contends that the trial court violated article IV, section 20 of

Washington's Constitution, and RCW 2.08.240 by deferring, during its April lO, 2013

oral ruling, his duty to value assets and liabilities until a later date. Zale argues that the

intervening five months between the trial court's oral ruling and the entry of written

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the decree of dissolution resulted in Diane

Wood, not the court, deciding the material facts and issues in the case favorable to her.

He complains that the trial court failed to assign value to the family residence, household

goods, personal property, or liabilities of the parties, which failure misled him to

conclude his divorce was not final.

 Diane Wood responds that the parties understood the trial court's oral ruling as

shown by Zale's listing and selling the Yakima property prior to entry of the final decree

 lO
 No. 32022-7-III
In re the Marriage 0/ Wood

of dissolution and in compliance with the oral ruling. She maintains that the only dispute

unresolved after trial was whether she might be eligible for an increase in social security

benefits. Diane observes that Zale never objected to the trial court's direction that the

parties sell their home and gather more information about Diane's social security benefits

before presenting final orders.

 Article IV, section 20 of Washington's Constitution provides, in relevant part:

\Every cause submitted to a judge of a superior court for his decision shall be decided by